UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The political philosophy of Bertrand Russell Bertrand, Raoul Crawford 1946

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1946_A8 B3 P6.pdf [ 5.02MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0105752.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0105752-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0105752-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0105752-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0105752-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0105752-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0105752-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0105752-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0105752.ris

Full Text

The P o l i t i c a l Philosophy of Bertrand Russell oy Raoul Crawford Bertrand. A Thesis submitted i n P a r t i a l Fulfilment of The Requirements f o r the Degree of MASTER-OF ARTS*' in the Department of PHILOSOPHY The University of B r i t i s h Columbia A p r i l 1946 lEa.ble of ©ontents. Chapter One. Chapter Two. Chapter Three. Chapter Four . Chapter Five. Chapter Six. Chapter Seven. Russell As A Man and A Writer, The Modern State. Democracy. War and Private Property. Communism. Anarchism, Syndicalism, and G i l d Socialism. Power and Internationalism (Conclusion. Bibliography . Page 1. . Page 15. Page 34. Page 54« Page 73. Page 88. Page 99. Page 114. Page 120.-Chapter One. Russell As A Man And A Writer. 2 There have been, through the years, only a very few men g i f t e d with the rare a b i l i t y to absorb and synthe-siz e into t h e i r own minds any considerable portion of the known knowledge of t h e i r time. Among such g i f t e d men, Ar-i s t o t l e and Aquinas have been two of the most b r i l l i a n t , but since the l a t t e r ' s time such a feat has become almost impossible due to the vast increase and s p e c i a l i z a t i o n i n human knowledge. But there have been men who have soared c l o s e d to t h i s i d e a l . One of the greatest of them i n our tim© i s Bertrand Russell, an English a r i s t o c r a t by b i r t h , a cosmoplite of the world by nature. With a thorough and intensive education behind him, the young Russell set out many years ago to s e t t l e c e r t a i n problems of mathematics which he found puzzling or inconsistent; problems, which he t e l l s us f i r s t arose when he discovered at the age of eleven that the basic conclusions of Euclidean geomentry depended on axioms which could not be proved, but must be assumed to be true. However, he has found that each old problem s e t t l e d leads to a new and often more d i f f i c u l t one. It was t h i s discovery which has l e d him so f a r from his o r i g i n a l f i e l d of i n t e r e s t . Mathematics aroused his i interest i n l o g i c and epistemology. The l a t t e r may have caused him to devote some study to metaphysics. Associated with t h i s is his interest i n other closely r e l a t e d subjects such .as ethics, r e l i g i o n , and s o c i a l problems. In the natu-r a l course of events, just as he contributed new and s t a r t -3. - l i n g theories to the science of mathematics, Russell also co-ordinated and expanded his views on other subjects unt-- i l he had created a l o g i c a l , coherent philosophy. Despite the comprehensiveness of t h i s philosophy i t cannot r e a l l y be c a l l e d a system i n the'~strict t e c h n i c a l sense. Rather, i t i s a seeking f o r a way of l i f e , g iving the broadest po-s s i b l e interpretation to that term; a way of l i f e which i s concerned largely with the e t h i c a l and s o c i a l nature of man, his r e l a t i o n s h i p to himself and to others. Russell has de--voted much of his time and talent to the study of t h i s su-bject and has reached a number of d e f i n i t e conclusions about i t . These conclusions, I c a l l his e t h i c a l and p o l i t i c a l p h i l -osophy, the l a t t e r being only a natural growth out of the former, and i t i s t h i s same p o l i t i c a l philosophy, together with a consideration of his a b i l i t y as a p o l i t i c a l philoso--pher, which w i l l be the subject of t h i s t h e s i s . The purpose of the thesis is twofold. I s h a l l attempt to establish two major points about R u s s e l l . My f i r s t aim is to prove that Russell has, since his e a r l i e s t work, developed and adhered to a consistent p o l i t i c a l philosophy, contrary to the popular b e l i e f that he has v a c i l l a t e d back and f o r t h among many theories and systems. This is not nece - e s s a r i l y a consistency of method i n studying d i f f e r e n t ide--ologies, but i t is a consistency i n the conclusions he has reached regarding t h e i r value a f t e r he has examined them. The second point I hope to prove is that Russell i s 4. an able p o l i t i c a l philosopher. To prove t h i s I s h a l l desc--ribe the basic p r i n c i p l e s of his philosophy, dwelling at • greater length on the aspects of the subject which he oon--siders the most important and to which he devotes the most space. Among these are the two great ideologies of our day, democracy an* communism; the two major economic doctrines of capitalism and state socialism; and the problem of war and international peace which has never been so much i n men's minds as i t has during the l a s t quarter of a century. •Russell i n s i s t s that c i v i l i z a t i o n can only endure, i f every in d i v i d u a l man has as much personal freedom and l i b e r t y as is compatible with the interests of men as a whole. The only r e s t r i c t i o n s which should be imposed are those which are necessary to safeguard t h i s l i b e r t y . This theory might almost be c a l l e d Russell's 'touohstone' and i t is to t h i s 'touchstone 1 that he applies a l l p o l i t i c a l the--ories before evaluating them. In my opinion, one of the most pertinent evidences of his genius/ l i e s in the manner of his approach to the study of these d i f f e r e n t ideologies. It is fundamentally the painstaking approach of the s c i e n t i s t and .his attempt is to nncover the underlying causes of what he i s invest* «igating; from these he goes on to i t s wider ramifications, both i n theory and i n everyday p r a c t i c e . F i r s t , a l l e x i s t i n g information about the theories i s gathered together and observed, then c e r t a i n hypotheses" are reached, and f i n a l l y , 5. the a b i l i t y of these hypotheses to function i n a p r a c t i c a l s i t u a t i o n is considered. It i s a method which is cold and a n a l y t i c a l , d i s r e s p e c t f u l of irrelevant material and opin-i o n s , interested only i n true f a c t s , the l o g i c a l inferences which may he drawn from them, and i n the ultimate t r u t h of these inferences. In a purely formal way, the same approach can be.xised "by any s c i e n t i f i c a l l y trained investigator, but Russell brings to i t something more, something which i s an i n t r i n s i c part of his own personality. Part of t h i s some--thing is c e r t a i n l y his vast erudition. Another part i s his almost complete freedom from bias or predjudice of any kind, although there are some subjects such as C h r i s t i a n i t y where t h i s statement does not hold true. A t h i r d part i s h i s rare a b i l i t y to reason a problem through to a l o g i c a l sound conclusion, irrespective of conventional hindrances or contemporary s o c i a l mores. These are probably the three main aspects of the Russell touch, though there are others, including his l i t e r a r y a b i l i t y and his disregard f o r public opinion. It is in the possession of these attributes that Russell d i f f e r s from other men. There are few others whose interests are as widespread, and even fewer others who are as well equipped to develop them. It would be incorrect, however, to suggest that Russell i s a paragon of a l l the v i r t u e s , that he is always r i g h t , f o r i t is not so. He has a considerable s p r i n k l i n g of f a u l t s along with his better q u a l i t i e s , and both are a 6. product, not of his detached s c i e n t i f i c manner, hut of a l l the aspects of his own personality which have just been discussed. No attempt w i l l be made to outline a l l of Russell's good points, both as a writer and a thinker, f o r that would necessarily be very a r b i t r a r y . However, there are some which stand out above the others and therefore must receive s p e c i a l attention. His unusual a b i l i t y to develop his point almost to i n f i n i t y i s so d i s t i n c t i v e as to be a source of f a s c i n a t i o n to the reader. In "Marriage and Morals", when he wishes to discuss the nature of family l i f e i n the present day, he begins with a survey of the family as i t existed i n early primitive t r i b e s and traces i t s growth through the matriarc-h a l and pa t r i a r c h a l systems to the i n s t i t u t i o n of today. £te i s never s a t i s f i e d with describing one aspect of a subject, but almost always concerns himself with a l l the elements which go to make up the whole. In the case of the family he reviews i t from the point of view of varying r e l i g i o n s , races, n a t i o n a l i t i e s , and even economic doctrines. Another s t r i k i n g example of t h i s a b i l i t y i s the comparatively recent book,'Power', i n which the thesis i s maintained that the motivating XOTEK force of mankind is not desire f o r economic security, nor f o r r e l i g i o u s f a i t h , but the desire f o r power, which he concludes is the basic yearning of a l l men. Russell postulated a dozen different kinds of power and proceeded to elaborate each one of them. Whether or not one agrees with the o r i g i n a l t h e s i s , i t cannot be denied that he has consider-ed the idea of power from every possible angle. Russell is primarily interested i n discovering the t r u t h . Therefore he has cu l t i v a t e d a r e l e n t l e s s , searching manner with regard to research. Nothing is too great, or too i n s i g n i f i c a n t , too private or too public or too sacred, to come under his scrutiny, ^e has never respected persons or places or i n s t i t u t i o n s i n the sense that he has f e l t them to be beyond c r i t i c i s m . This attitude has frequently caused him personal hardship as i n the f i r s t world war when he was im--prisoned f o r teaching p a c i f i c i s m . In the same vein, he has developed the knack of cutting through useless verbiage and i n t e l l e c t u a l jargon i n order to get to the core of a matter. He is not interested so much i n words as i n what they mean. I f they convey no meaning, he discards them. He has the courage to spare nothing i n his research and the same courage prevents him from wavering i n his con--vi c t i o n s once they have been reached. He has never given up a b e l i e f f o r any other reason than that i t had been r a t i o n a l l y proved to be f a l s e , c e r t a i n l y never because i t c o n f l i c t e d with the moral or p o l i t i c a l views of any p a r t i c u l a r person^ or group of people. Five years ago t h i s led to considerable unpleasant--ness when the College of the City of New York broke t h e i r » contract with him because of his alleged immoral views. Although at the time there were harsh words said on both sides, i t nwer ocurred to Russell to renounce views which he did 8 hold. Had a nyone taken the trouble to read the hook i n question, they would have discovered that these alleged views were very d i f f e r e n t from those he act u a l l y possessed. As I have said, i n the f i r s t Great War, he suffered public disgaace rather than give up his views on pa c i f i c i s m . The f a c t that he l a t e r support-ed the A l l i e s i n the second world war i s not a r e f l e c t i o n on Russell's character. He says that the aims and causes of the two wars were very d i f f e r e n t and that the second one was t r u l y a f i g h t f or the su r v i v a l of freedom, while the f i r s t one was s t r i c t l y I m p e r i a l i s t i c . A few years a f t e r the f i r s t war, he was laughed at fo r h i s attitude towards Internationalism, an attitude which was to come into general prominence a quarter of • a century l a t e r . We cannot help hut respect a man who i s w i l l -ing to s a c r i f i c e personal dignity and f i n a n c i a l loss rather than y i e l d his ideals to those of the mob. Russell's l i t e r a r y s t y l e i s one of his most popular q u a l i t i e s , since i t can be appreciated by those who are predjud-iced against believing what he has to say, either through personal bias or through the attitude of the general public. This s t y l e i s easy and informal, not overloaded with i n t e l l e c t -ual phrases, nor couched i n such simple words that i t becomes monotonous. I t i s straightforward, naturla, and unaffected, seeming to flow along from one paragraph to the next. Like h i s thought, i t r a r e l y ever suffers from i n h i b i t i o n s . He has the power to create a mood by swaying the emotions and uses i t frequently. One of the f i n e s t examples i s the following, 9. passage.taken from a short section i n which he i s evaluating C h r i s t i a n i t y . "The p r i n c i p l e s of the Sermon on the Mount are admir--able, hut t h e i r effect upon average human nature was very dif f e r e n t from what was intend-ed. Those who followed Christ did not learn to love t h e i r enemies or to turn the other cheek. They learned instead to use the I n q u i s i t i o n and the stake, to subject the human i n t e l l e c t to the yoke of an ignorant and intolerant priesthood, to degrade art and extinguish science f o r a thousand years." * The following short passage from his hook on China shows him i n a different mood, a mood i n which he i s creating an exquisite poetry i n prose. * Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, Page 16. ie. At the "same time, t h i s l i t e r a r y s t y l e is often so smooth that i t is a dangerous handicap to him as a serious philosophical writer. On occasion he writes so f l u i d l y and with such ease about a subject that the reader i s completely convinced u n t i l a more cautious examination proves that the point at issue has been neither thoroughly nor accurately discussed. There is a second, effect issuing from the same cause. The reader finds what he i s saying so plausible that he does not pause to r e f l e c t on i t s meaning, and frequently receives a t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t impression than the intended one. When Northwestern University recently compiled a series of papers dealing with every phhse of Russell's work and prepared by.some of the most eminent• scholars of the day, they were s t a r t l e d when Russell, a f t e r reading the essays, reported that over hal f t h e i r authors had not understood what he meant, or else had wrongly interpreted his meaning. Though i t can not f a i r l y be said regarding, his more serious works, there can be no question that i n his popular books, he is frequently deliberately flippant and sensational. He i s a master of the art of prose s t y l e and no one knows better how to catch the eye of the average reader than he. Regardless of how uninhibited he himself i s , he i s aware that other people lead more conventional i n t e l l e c t u a l l i v e s and that when he throws an^ unfounded and s t a r t l i n g statement into these l i v e s , he is being sensational. Perhaps t h i s is why he does i t . 11. Flippancy is tha mark of a person who either does not know how to reason, or cannot he bothered. In either case, i t is a very poor quality i n a writer who considers what he has to syy to he of considerable importance i n the i n t e l l e c t u a l world. The l u c i d i t y of Russell's s t y l e i s i n d i r e c t l y one of the causes f o r so much c r i t i c i s m of him as a v a c i l l a t o r . I think i t may be f a i r l y said that he often appears to change from one opinion to another, because i n each new book he writes with a conviction and s i n c e r i t y so intense that the unwary believe that the problem of t h i s book i s the most impor-t a n t problem of a l l . Closer scrutiny, however, reveals that each thesis or each b e l i e f is-only a part of the system as a whole. The factk that his books do f i t into a coherent pattern i s r e a l l y a t r i b u t e to his greatness, as each work i s an en t i t y i n i t s e l f and is not "part of an organized and comprehen--sive plan. I have sai d that Russell almost completely lacks any predjudice or bias and I now come to the exception, which i s here to be considered as a f a u l t . In his approach to r e l i g i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y the C h r i s t i a n r e l i g i o n , he i s altogether too arb-i t r a r y . He has always i n s i s t e d that C h r i s t a i n i t y as a r e l i g i o n and a church i n practice, has contributed nothing useful or valuable to c i v i l i z a t i o n . He tends to confuse r e l i g i o n as a way of l i f e and r e l i g i o n as a dogmatic theology, though he admits he r e a l i z e s the d i s t i n c t i o n between them, ^e seems to think 12. that i t is a l l the same thing and that one l a b e l w i l l cover a l l He i s unable to r e f r a i n from making slanderous remarks when-ever he can and often s p o i l s a good piece of work by casting wholly irrelevant aspersions on the church. Aside from.the fac t that his entire bias on the subject is unwholesome, there are two main objections to t h i s a t t i t u d e . The f i r s t i s that i t often appears i n the midst of a piece of w r i t i n g which i s respectable i n every other way and well worthy of our consid-e r a t i o n , causing us to shy away from everything he says. The second objection i s that i n his f a i l u r e to admit the great contributionsm made to c i v i l i z a t i o n by C h r i s t i a n i t y , he allows predjudice to b l i n d his reason. He never remembers that the church, despite the depths of corruption to which i t has sunk at various times, was responsible f o r keeping a l i v e the basic elements of our modern culture throughout the Dark Ages a f t e r t collapse of the Roman Empire. Much of what he says regarding the church i s p a r t i a l l y true, but i t is almost impossible to sort t h i s out from the great deal which he :says that is e n t i r e l y absurd. In his most recent book which is a history of a l l western philosophy, his attitude has undergone a s l i g h t change. Though he is s t i l l out of sympathy with r e l i g i o n i n both i t s forms, advancing years have apparently brought mellowness, and his attacks have not t h e i r old b i t t e r n e s s . A c t u a l l y , he now seems almost ind i f f e r e n t to the subject as i f he no longer considered i t of any importance. This new p o s i t i o n seems f a r more preferable than his former one. 13. I have now come to what w i l l appear here as the last, though not the least,of his major f a u l t s . This i s his discursiveness. Russell poses as an authority on f a r too many subjects, with the result that some of his work has not the merit possessed by other work. The more popular books on morals are probably the worst offenders. Many of the facts contained within them are authentic and many of the opinions are well considered. But by f a r the largest number of flippant remarks also appear here. With the s t -ra i g h t f o r w a r d sharpness of the true s c i e n t i s t , Russell cuts through such red tape as conventional ideas and public opin-i o n i n order to present his conception of the moral l i f e . T o t a l l y disregarded is the fact that morals are not and by t h e i r very nature can never be s c i e n t i f i c . I f progress is to be made i n broadening or r e v i s i n g them, i t can only be made by proceeding with great caution. A man of Russell's, mental stature ought to know t h i s and act accordingly. I f he cannot, he should stay away from the moral f i e l d a l t o -gether. There can be no objection to a writer who i s very discursive,providing he can treat each subject with as much in t e l l i g e n c e and fairness as he brings to his own sp e c i a l f i e l d . This is what Russell t r i e s to do, but his success i s not always apparent. Before consideration of any p a r t i c u l a r aspect of hi s philosophy can be carr i e d on, i t is esse n t i a l that we 14. r e a l i z e these shortcomings as wells as his vi r t u e s , both as a master of prose s t y l e , and as a philosopher. 15. Chapter Two, The Modern State. P o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y , by i t s very nature is inherently concerned with the r e l a t i o n of man to his fellow men; to the community; and to the s o c i a l process as a whole. It i s hound up with p r e v a i l i n g e t h i c a l codes and with the morality of the time and place. The morals of most men are determined by t h e i r r e l i g i o n , t h e i r economic position, and the opinions of t h e i r fellows, whose morality i s i n turn determined by the same things. Any p o l i t i c a l system or philosophy which wishes to gain wide support must recognize t h i s and eater to the b e l i e f s and superstitions of the masses. Man appeared f i r s t , then society, then p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y . For t h i s reason, p o l i t i c s is inextricably interwoven with the e t h i c a l and s o c i a l l i f e of the group. Yet, i t i s not a part of t h i s l i f e , as i n a crisAs human beings w i l l usually serve themselves and t h e i r group before they w i l l serve t h e i r p o l i t i c a l b e l i e f s , although there have been and are many exceptions to t h i s r u l e . Tt must then be considered as more or less an out-* growth of our s o c i a l l i f e . As such i t naturally follows'-that the development of e t h i c a l or s o c i a l l i f e i s a natural fore-runner to the development of p o l i t i c a l l i f e . I f one seeks to understand a c e r t a i n p o l i t i c a l development, one can do i t better with a thorough knowledge of the e t h i c a l environment surrounding i t , and out of which i t was created. Russell i s • no exception. He i s interested i n ethics so that he can better understand man's r e l a t i o n to the whole world process, the process of p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y . At the present time the state is the climax of t h i s p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y . In other words, i t i s the highest l e v e l that our s o c i a l evolutionary process has reached. This pro-cess may r e a l l y s t i l l he c a l l e d p r i m i tive, as our c i v i l i z -a t i o n i s s t i l l i n i t s infancy, and we have reason to hope that the process is not near an end. The f i r s t stage was that of the family group and the early primitive t r i b e s . Then came the ancient dynasties such as those of Babylon, S y r i a , and Egypt. These were followed by the c i t y state idea of the Greeks and Romans which i n turn gave way to medieval feudalism. With the advance of science, feudalism f e l l and was replaced by nationalism. How, we are turning our thoughts towards a new stage i n human history, that of internationalism. Whether t h i s is the f i n a l stage or riot i t is impossible to predict. It depends largely on what the science of the future makes possible. Because of i t s b i o l o g i c a l unity, the family i s considered the o r i g i n a l s o c i a l u n i t . From the family, society as we know i t , has sprung. The o r i g i n a l basis f o r extension beyond the ttlaramypwasp the blood group. Several related fam-i l i e s grouped together to.form the clan or t r i b e . Natural developments i n transportation with t h e i r corresponding increase i n immigration caused the decline of the t r i b a l system and the growth of new organizations of society. These were largely based on property and common interests, such as language, r e l i g i o n , race, etc., but were also influenced by economic conditions, which produced the class or caste system at an early stage. The di f f e r e n t elements which enter into the. evolution of-the s o c i a l process are so multiple and so various that they form a complete and complicated study i n themselves. But'•.all of these elements have been i n some part responsible f o r the development of what we term the modern state. The blood t i e is one of the more important fac t o r s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the early l i f e of a sta t e . The develppment of our own country of Canada has been tremendously influenced by the t i e of kinship which prevails among the French Canadians. Even i n older, more s e t t l e d communities i t s influence cannot be overlooked and one of the reasons the League of Nations^ was because i t neglected to take t h i s f a c t o r into sonsideration. Almost equally important i s the t e r r i t o r i a l xtoe t i e . People who l i v e i n a common t e r r i t o r y f e e l themselves bound together to promote i t s interests and to protect i t . Possibly the newest and strongest t i e of a l l i s the sentiment of nationalism, which has grown up since the Renaissance. It is a f e e l i n g of separation from other peoples with di f f e r e n t heritages and a f e e l i n g of kinship with those around you who have s i m i l a r mental and physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Over and above both of these, nationalism has come to be i d e n t i f i e d with the struggle or at least the desire f o r self-government, when such a desire- i s held i n common by a group of people. A l l of these reasons combined with language, race, jar . ' 2 r e l i g i o n , and e t h i c a l codes have served to create the idea of one state as distinguished from another. The i n t e r n a l development of the state has been a product of the same causes plus the continual struggle of the lower classes ..f'pr p o l i t i c a l equality. The class system, created i n most cases by economic conditions, has prevailed i n almost every state at one time or another. It originated with the establishment of the chief of a t r i b e or a clan. This gradually turned into the concept of sovereignity which i n the majority of instances was strengthened by r e l i g i o u s association of the sovereign with d i v i n i t y . He c o l l e c t e d about him either his f a v o r i t e s , his family, or his advisers, who eventually became the nobles and the r u l i n g c l a s s . The common people who had o r i g i n a l l y wanted a king as t h e i r representative i n dealing with other states now. found themselves faced with the probelm of a whole governing class possessing a l l the p o l i t i c a l power, because they possessed a l l the economic power and thus controlled she remainder of the people. Eventually the s i t u a t i o n reached a poitit where the king found himself forced to unite with the nobles to keep the commons down, or to unite with the commons to keep the nobles down. It was i n t h i s way that state power as we know i t emerged. Many modern philosophers l i k e Marx and Oppen-heimer i n s i s t that state l i n e s are determined exclusively by c l a s s , although more l i b e r a l men give the credit or blame to some of the other influences which work on the state such as ethnocentrism, nationalism, etc., The d i f f i c u l t y appears to he to draw a d i s t i n c t i o n between the state and society. Most statesmen conceive of the two as one, or at le a s t , of the state as superior to society . The state, accordingly possesses f u l l sovereignity i n the sense that i t has complete control and l i f e or death power over i t s subjects. This i s a confusion which must be cleared up. R. M. Mclver compares t h i s doctrine of state sovereignity with the claims of the divine r i g h t i s t s . Act-u a l l y the re l a t i o n s h i p between the two i s very d i f f e r e n t . The state is only an instrument of society. B a s i c a l l y , soc-i e t y i s a community, one of the organs of which is the state. Thus the state i s only one association among many, though i t d i f f e r s from a l l others i n that everyone within i t s bound-aries, must belong to i t . The important thing is that i t has a duty to i t s members and when i t f a i l s to perform t h i s duty properly, i t s members have a right to object, even by force i f necessary. This view of the state has been lost sight of by most philosophers with the possible exception of the modern l i b e r a l s , but i t has been ever present to Russell who has spent a great deal of time and energy seeking to have some of the shackles the state has placed on society removed. Plato most emphatically did not believe i n t h i s doctrine at a l l . He i n s i s t e d that the state must have complete power over the i n d i v i d u a l , but th i s view does not seem so F a s c i s t i c when we remember the p o l i t i c a l confusion of Athens i n his time. Nor was he communistic i n our sense of the word as he s t i l l f i r m l y "believed i n slavery and the class structure l i k e most of his compatriots. His p u p i l , A r i s t o t l e was closer to the modern idea of a democrat. He advocated p o l i t i c a l pluralism and the rights of the i n d i v i d -u a l , confining the state to a sort of e t h i c a l function. Towards the close of the feudal ages when national states seemed as inevitable as internationalism does today, the I t a l i a n writer Machiavelli outlined four ways tin which a national state could he attained. The f i r s t two were by the use of the p r e v a i l i n g ethics and r e l i g i o n of the people to b u i l d up the state, and the t h i r d was by t e l l i n g tham how superior they were to t h e i r neighboring states and thus building up t h e i r egos. The l a s t and most important was by e x p l o i t i n g the power of the state to the maximum and using t h i s power i n every possible way to increase the security of the nation. Here we f i n d the beginning of the idea of the state being associated with power. For many years t h i s power rested i n the hands pf a sovereign, but eventually t h i s divine right was questioned. Prominent among those philosophers who came to the support of the monarchy was the Englishman Thomas Hobbes. By pointing out the natural ego-ism of mankind and the need f o r self-preservation, he a t t -empted to j u s t i f y the p o s i t i o n of the r u l e r . His successor, loeke, the f i r s t of the English l i b e r a l s , was not so i n t e r e s t -ed i n the sovereign as he was i n the doctrine that the state i t s e l f possessed sovereign powers and could do no wrong. He f e l t that any p o l i t i c a l authority should provide law and j u s t i c e , hut that otherwise i t should never v i o l a t e the r i g h t s of the i n d i v i d u a l , which he considered to he of the f i r s t importance. In the same t r a d i t i o n as Locke was James M i l l and his son, John Stuart M i l l . They were firm "believers i n the ri g h t s of man and i n the doctrine of i n d i v i d u a l freedom and l i b e r t y . The only r e s t r i c t i o n s which could he accepted are those which are e s s e n t i a l to the preservation of law and order. As we s h a l l see, Russell, godson of the l a t e r M i l l , followed closely i n t h e i r path, althoxigh he elaborated h i s "beliefs more s p e c i f i c a l l y . From a l l these men and many others, and from a l l the ages of c i v i l i z a t i o n , the ideas and theories which we-hawe incorporated into the modern state have come down to us, with the result that our state is a peculiar i n s t i t u t i o n possessing strange powers and even stranger properties. Not only that, hut every state has i t s aoji own personal peculiar, i t i e s . I have attempted to f i n d a d e f i n i t i o n which i s universal enough to cover a l l states and have emerged with that used "by R. M. Mclver i n his work on the subject. He says that, "The state is an association, which acting through law as promulgated by a go vernment endowed to t h i s end with coercive power, maintains within a community t e r r i t o r i a l l y demarcated, the u n i v e r s a l , external conditions of s o c i a l order." (1.) I consider t h i s d e f i n i t i o n adequate because i t is applicable to either dictatorship or democracy with equal i m p a r t a i l i t y . And as a d e f i n i t i o n i t c l e a r l y states what most men w i l l agree ia. the nature of the state today. Russell would c e r t a i n l y agree with i t . It says nothing about the duties or priveledges of the state. It merely says that i t s purpose is to maintain law and order. I...feel that now we have considered the origins of the state, a d e f i n i t i o n of i t , and Russell's keen respect fttv the rights sta.* of the i n d i v i d u a l , we are prepared to examine his views on a l l the a,£ipecfts of the state wlkth which he deals. He commences his discussion of the state by attacking i t s tremendous power. He i n s i s t s that the state, because of i t s power to wage war, and private property, are the two most potent e v i l s of the modern world, are harmful to l i f e because of the excess use of power, and are hastening the lossof v i t a l i t y from which the c i v i l i z e d world increasingly'suffers. This i s a point-which he re-iterates again and again i n different places, f e e l i n g that i t cannot be emphasized too strongly. Russell maintains that t h i s tromendous power can r e a l l y be curbed only i n two ways; i n t e r n a l l y by r e b e l l i o n and externally by f a i l u r e i n war. It i s the fear of these two catastrophes whihh preserves what l i t t l e "balance is maintained. In practice the state can i n t e r f e r e with the l i f e and happiness of i t s c i t i z e n s to an enormous extent. It can tax, order, control, demand, and command. In the larger states i t appears to he able to control public opinion so that the views of any i n d i v i d u a l person no longer matter much one way or the other. In the large democracies of the present, Russell says that r e l i g i o u s t o l e r a t i o n is a farce, while race and color have become p o l i t i c a l foot b a l l s . . But the ultimate power of the state so f a r as any i n d i v i d u a l is concerned i s i t s assumption of the right to wage war where and when i t pleases, ordering men about with no sympathy f o r t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r a b i l i t i e s and t a l e n t s . On t h i s subject, Russell becomes rather b i t t e r and vague, perhaps because i t is a subject which touched him so personally during the f i r s t world war and perhaps because i t is a subject on which so much can be s a i d and yet so much s t i l l be l e f t unsaid. The external power of the state i f i t possesses any is derived from the threat of war and inspired by t h i s weapon. A l l states pursue external p o l i c i e s which are b a s i c a l l y s e l f i s h . The ends of t h i s selfishness are either' the a c q u i s i t i o n of power and prestige, or the opportunity of successfully exploiting weaker countries. In the . e f f o r t to acheive these ends, nothing is too much f o r the state to do. People are put to death by the hundreds 43. and t h e i r territory- ravaged and burned. Russell with his ch a r a c t e r i s t i c l i t e r a r y eloquence paints some v i v i d word pictures on the e v i l s of war. Writing about the eve of World War I, he says, "While the relations between states remained completely unmodernized, t h e i r power of inju r i n g each other had been immeasurably increased. Science and indu s t r i a l i s m had transformed the art of war, and made i t possible to devote to f i g h t i n g and the production of munitions, a f a r la r g e r proportion of the population than had been available f o r destruction i n the campaigns of Napoleon nationalism and fear, in disastrous i n t e r a c t i o n , continually increased each other....."(2.) Faced with many such pictures as t h i s , our immed-iate reaction i s to ask why men to l e r a t e the exercise of such naked power. Their acquiescence is due to several different reasons. The most important of these, of course, i s the f e e l i n g of nationalism which h_3s been elaborated and strengthened since the days of t r i b a l feeling. This f e e l i n g provides a basis f o r the unity of the state, although the strength of the state originated from two quite d i f f e r e n t sources. These were the fear of anarchy within the nation and the fear of aggression from without. These fears provide an incentive to mankind to. unite together into a group. The group may be animated once i t is formed by either common friendship, or a consciously determined purpose. The f i r s t 2. Freedom and Organization, Page 481-482. i s more common and r e s u l t s i n a p o l i t i c a l nation, while the second becomes a r e l i g i o u s creed which usually soars beyond mere boundary l i n e s as i t did i n Europe i n the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Russell distinguishes between t r i b a l f e e l i n g and patriotism as elements i n the unity of the state. The l a t t e r , he says, is a much more complicated f e e l i n g , con-t a i n i n g within i t more elements of our nature than the form-er, such as our love f o r our home and family. In a d d i t i o n to t h i s we have an i n s t i n c t i v e love f o r our compatriots as opposed to foreigners, because we are able to know and understand t h e i r way of l i f e . There is also a very strong r e l i g i o u s element i n patriotism, which i n s t i l s i n many men a f e e l i n g of the n o b i l i t y of s a c r i f i c e i n war. This element is usually supp-orted by an educational system which instructs the young i n the greatness of t h e i r countries past, sometimes to the almost complete subordination of knowledge of any other c o u n t r y ' s acheivements. We have had many examples of t h i s i n the l a s t decade, but the most g l a r i n g example at the moment is i n the United States of America. In commenting on patriotism, Russell declares i t to be one of the t r u l y great e v i l s existent, and that, "We cannot avoid having more love f o r our own country than f o r other countries, and there i s no reason why we should, wish to avoid i t ails'- more than we should wish to love a l l men and women equally. But any adequate r e l i g i o n w i l l lead us to temper inequality of a f f e c t i o n by love of j u s t i c e , and to u n i v e r s a l i z e our aims by r e a l i z i n g the common needs of man." (3.) As a r e l i g i o n patriotism is p e c u l i a r l y undesirable, because of i t s national l i m i t a t i o n s . It aims at ends which w i l l benefit only one nation and not a l l nations. Such an end is i n direct opposition to Russell's conception of a good end as stated i n his essay on the Elements of E t h i c s , (ft.) For t h i s reason, i t i s i n f e r i o r to r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s which concern themselves with saving the souls of men. Once people become capable of suppressing t h e i r own good fo r that of the larger group, there is no reason why they should stop u n t i l the good of the entire human race has been attained. What is needdfeo make a noble sentiment out of patriotism is the removal of national pride and the refinement of u n i v e r s a l i t y . Patriotism is s u f f e r i n g severe attacks on i t s i n t e g r i t y with the growing r i s e of socialism and a n t i -3. Why Men Fight, Page 27. 4. The f i r s t essay i n the series e n t i t l e d Philosophical Essays, and published i n 1910. c a p i t a l i s t i c moTements generally, as these movements tend to unite the oppressed of many lands irregardless of bord-ers between states. Further, most states, of which Russia i s a notable exception, are interested i n maintaining'the priveledged position of the wealthy, thus causing labor.to unite, not only with foreigners, but to unite with the hope ofyftbanging the status quo and seizing p o l i t i c a l power f o r themselves. In Russia the s i t u a t i o n is much the same only reversed. There, the priveledged position of the p r o l e t a r i a t is maintained. What w i l l happen i n t h i s case is a d i f f i c u l t question to answer, though the exper-ience i n A u s t r a l i a gives cause f o r a certa i n amount of pessimism. In that country, labor since i t has come into power has excluded foreign labor from entering the land, proving i t s e l f to be as intolerant as a c a p i t a l i s t i c regime. Russell strongly emphasizes his b e l i e f that the state w i l l at a l l times work towards promoting e f f i c i e n c y i n war. I f e e l that he has allowed his judgement to be swayed by his b i t t e r hatred of war f o r t h i s statement hardly stands when considered with regard to the disarm-anent p o l i c i e s of B r i t a i n and the United States during the decade immediately p r i o r to the second world war, and the appeasement policy of England just before the wa». Cham-b e r l a i n may have, d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y , promoted the war, but he c e r t a i n l y never promoted the e f f i c i e n c y of his own country f o r f i g h t i n g i t . ' The state creates an a r t i f i c -i a l s i t u a t i o n with reference to our duty to mankind. On the one hand we are bound by the law and s i n c e r e l y t r y to preserve peace within our national l i m i t s . On the other hand we seem bound by no lav/ except that of murderers and l o o t e r s , and t r y , just as sincerely, to force f o r e i g n states to asknowledge the s u p e r i o r i t y of ours. Russell i n s i s t s that u n t i l we can persuade mankind of the necessity f o r a p o l i t i c a l , economic, and intellectual?: framework working f o r a positive,. expression of good w i l l towards a l l , the present system w i l l p r e v a i l . This PQwer urge is perhaps the ultimate reason why i t i s impossible f o r democratic and f a s c i s t states to exist concurrently. The entire raetaphysic of t h e . f a s c i s t state is external power by any means, while the democratic state is forced by public opinion to r e f r a i n from any open show of power in the f i e l d of -foreign r e l a t i o n s . This, of course, is largely i n theory only, but i t does have to be more c a r e f u l . Thus we f i n d that.,conflict fov&reen theoret-i c a l ideals and p r a c t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s b-e-bwe'ehethe two types of states is almost i n e v i t a b l e . This i n e v i t a b i l i t y frequently leads to war. In the case of the communistic state, the contrast - i s not so strong, because here the state i s more concerned at f i r s t i n bui l d i n g up and maintaining i t s i n t e r n a l power, before i t can give much thought to the problem of external prestige. In theory, t h e i r foreign policy can hardly be c a l l e d one of aggression f o r i t is the unique idea of world revol u t i o n by any means at a l l . Some time ago I pointed out that the state.regard-l e s s of what kind i t is , is only an instrument of society and as such has been created to be the servant of the indiv-i d u a l man. Its function then i s to a i d i n the control and operation of c e r t a i n a c t i v i t i e s necessary to the freedom and l i b e r t y of the i n d i v i d u a l l . One of i t s most important functions has been the substitution of law f o r force' i n the re l a t i o n s of men with" one another. Russell adds that t h i s s u b s t i t u t i o n can only be made t r u l y worthy by exercising law:in international r e l a t i o n s . This cannot be done unless we perfect a world state. In other words, at the present time, we are bound by the law and f e e l ourselves to be so i n dealing with our own compatriots, but we f e e l ourselves bound by no law when we are dealing with foreigners. As a second positive function, the state controls sa n i t a t i o n , f i r e prevention, police protection, etc. I t i s impossible to maintain that s a n i t a t i o n should be l e f t up to the in d i v i d u a l when what one person does w i l l so obviously a f f e c t the general welfare of the entire community. Russell mentions that the interference here with i n d i v i d u a l l i b e r t y i s i ndicative of compulsion, but that t h i s compulsion i s a smaller e v i l than the spread of disease and i n f e c t i o n would he. Prevention of r u i n by f i r e or "by .knavery of criminals comes under much the same heading. So does com-pulsory education. A large quantity of ignorant people i n a community are a r e a l danger to the rest of the population and the circumstances giving r i s e to such a s i t u a t i o n should be removed as qiiickly as possible. The state should also assume ce r t a i n obligation to encourage s c i e n t i f i c research and c e r t a i n r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the care of c h i l -dren. The state is the only organization which can i n s i s t on c h i l d r e n receiving at least a c e r t a i n amount of health care and education. Further, Russell most emphatically believes that the state should possess powers aimed at decreasing econ-omic i n j u s t i c e s . He considers, as I have already mentioned, that private property is one of the two great e v i l s of society. Usually i t is the state acting through law which creates these monopolies on land and property and, i n t h e i r turn, i t i s these monopolies which demand support from the community at large. If the state has control of a l l these things, just how much personal l i b e r t y has the individual l e f t . The problem is an ancient one. How can personal i n i a t i v e be combined with organization? The whole f i e l d of our p o l i t i c a l and economic l i f e i s becoming dominated by enormous org-anizations and corporations, while the i n d i v i d u a l faces 31. the danger of having his rights swept away by the r i s i n g t i d e . Of these great organizations, the modern democratic state with i t s increasing number of boards, bureaus, and commissions is rapidly becoming one of the most opp-re s s i v e . There are several ways i n which t h i s oppression may be l i f t e d rather than increased. The state should not attempt to function as a business conducting the a f f a i r s of i t s c i t i z e n s . Instead, as many as possible of i t i t s services should be carried on'by private agencies. But, and t h i s is important, i t is the duty of the state., to exact e f f i c i e n c y from these agencies and to supervise them by seeing that they'give the public the best service possible. In so f a r as i s compatible with t h i s e f f i c i e n c y , there is every reason to give as much £Te^dfomo-"&faa-tetd3on to the in d i v i d u a l as possible i n order to prevent the growth of a feeding of impotency. I f the work i s done by voluntary associations, then i t i s done by people who are interested i n seeing i t accomplished and w i l l work towards that end. These people would thus be united by common interests and desires. It is out of such groups as these, and because of such interests as these, that public opinion is formed. This public.opinion i s , i n the l a s t analysis, the only weapon any group of people have against the t y r r a n i c a l exercise of the powers of the state. It i s a weapon which almost always succeeds event-u a l l y . The length of time required f o r public f e e l i n g to achieve c e r t a i n ends depends on how strong the f e e l i n g i s , and how determined those i n authority are. E a r l i e r i n t h i s chapter emphasis was l a i d on the usurption by the state of the right to wage war i f and when i t pleases without consulting the people. This i s why R u s s e l l considers the state so d5et,rimenfraO. to the welfare of c i v i l i z a t i o n . It is not the state i t s e l f which i s so objectionable, but i t s readiness to wage war. He i s con-vinced that as long as nations r e t a i n t h e i r prerogatives, refusing to y i e l d them to an international power, the cat-astrophe of aggressive war w i l l remain. How long t h i s can be, or w i l l be, done i s a d i f f i c u l t qtiestion. New methods i n s c i e n t i f i c technique have made possible more hideous wars than have ever before been dreamed of. It has become apparent to a l l that such wars cannot go on i n d e f i n i t e l y , and that something must be done to prevent them- from recurring i n the future. The only solution open at the moment appears to be internationalism. The need f o r i t has become increasingly obvious as the only answer to the problems which confront us. For these reasons, and because Russell emphasizes the value of internationalism to world peace so strongly-, I s h a l l return to i t again i n a l a t e r chapter. Before that, however, something else must be done. I wish to b r i e f l y 33. review Russell's comments on the different types of p o l i t i c a l philosophies and ideologies advocated i n out time which have been put into actual practice, or havee come near to t h i s goal. I s h a l l ignore the philosophy of Fascism, f o r i t i s at themoment l o s i n g i t s influence so rapidl y that i n very l i t t l e time i t w i l l have but few adherents. Suffering from the crushing blows i t has recieved i n the past few years, i t is doubtful i f Fascism w i l l again become s i g n i f i c a n t , and even i f t h i s does happen i t w i l l not be f o r many years. 34. Chapter Tihree. Democracy, In the l a s t chapter the main types of the modern state existent i n the world today were b r i e f l y mentioned. Of these types, Russell considers that democracy i s by f a r the most important and li?*ely to become the most u n i v e r s a l . This is quite natural as the basic b e l i e f of a l l Russell's p o l i t i c a l thinking is his respect f o r the rights of the i n d i v i d u a l . Any other system, i n his opinion, is oppress-ive. A f u l l l i f e can only be achieved through freedom. This f u l l l i f e demands adherence to the doctrine of the greatest happiness f o r the greates possible number. Such happiness can only be arrived at by t o l e r a t i o n on the part of the state. The people must have freedom of thought and speech, even freedom of action is so f a r as i t i s compat-i b l e with the happiness of other peoples. There must be no discrimination because of race, creed, color, or language. Any other type of state than democracy cannot provide these things, becaiise one or more of them are contrary to the basic p r i n c i p l e s of that type. Fascism, quite obviously, discriminates s t r i c t l y among peoples of d i f f e r e n t races and creeds, and freedom of any kind does not e x i s t . Communism, at least i n theory, does not draw discriminatory l i n e s , but i t f a i l s to permit freedom of thought,• p a r t i c u l -a r l y with regard to the economic l i f e of the nation. On the other hand, modern democracy, despite i t s many f a u l t s , attempts to permit a l l of these freedoms and to eradicate any discrimination. Of course, a great deal of t h i s i s only t h e o r e t i c a l . Most of our great democracies of the " present day have become extremely bureaucratic since the turn of the century, with an increasing tendency to regu-l a t e the l i v e s of t h e i r c i t i z e n s , thus c u r t a i l i n g freedom of action. They have even tampered, by means of propaganda, with freedom of thought. Public opinion, however, i s a strange and unwieldy thing, slow to anger, but v i o l e n t when aroused. In the last analysis, i t is the only weapon the people have against the power of the state, but i t has proved a most potent one. Neither are modern democrac-ies free of a c e r t a i n amount of discrimination i n practice, though i n theory i t is largely non-existent. In the United States of America where.the majority of federal laws recognize equality of rig h t s between white and black people the negroes possess very few rights of a p o l i t i c a l nature and do not appear l i k e l y to gain more f o r some time to come. I am t r y i n g , as I write-this chapter, to consider the s i t u a t i o n as i t existed p r i o r , t o the war and as i t seems l i k e l y i t w i l l continue to exist i n the immediate future. S e l f defense and the need f o r unity i n war time make i t necessary f o r any state to take over c e r t a i n rights held by individuals i n order to protect the mass of the people. I am not saying whether t h i s i s good or bad, because such e t h i c a l considerations are irrelevant at the moment. Russell considers i t Jrj to he a harmful, hut nevertheless necessary action. The origins of the p o l i t i c a l theory of democracy are very obscure. Probably i t began with c e r t a i n primitive t r i b e s long before history became recorded. Wig know that democracy existed i n China centuries before the MoggMdan hordes of the great Khan swept down on the ancient c i t i e s of Peking and Hangchow while at the other end of the world the king of England was industriously attempting to wrest power from the barons, and grant a certain amount of f r e e -dom to the common people. This ancient Chinese form off democracy may be contrasted with our c o n s t i t u t i o n a l monarchy. The land was ruled by hereditary emperors, rather than by elected representatives, but a c e r t a i n amount of economic l i b e r t y was held by the common people. They owned the land they worked, i n contrast to the serfs of Europe, who were held i n v i r t u a l slavery by the great feudal l o r d s . It was not what we would term a democratic state today, but i t was probably the f i r s t step i n that d i r e c t i o n . The originator of modern democratic theory was A r i s t o t l e . He i n s i s t e d that man was a s o c i a l animal and that he finds his s o c i a l nature furthered by the society of which he necessarily forms a part. In his opinion the sole function of the state or of any other s o c i a l group into which man enters i s the completing and perfecting of man's personality. The state i s only a means f o r the 38. s e l f - r e a l i z a t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l . This is one of the e a r l i e s t assertions of the rights of man and of his importance i n the world. Centurj'es l a t e r the C h r i s t i a n church gave further impetus to t h i s b e l i e f since they believed that man was made i n God's image.. Again l a t e r , St. Thomas Aquinas applied the doctrines of C h r i s t i a n i t y to the philosophy of A r i s t o t l e . The r e s u l t , Thomism, became the o f f i c i a l philosophy of the Roman Catholic .^church and i t s most important contribution to the f i e l d of p o l i t i c a l philosophy was a reassert ion of A r i s t o t l e ' s individualism. Aquinas states that the s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l whole into which man enters as an i n t e g r a l part exists only f o r the sake of the individuals who compose i t . Man belongs to two realms, nature and grace. As a member of the realm of nature, man respects the authority of the e x i s t i n g government. As a member of the realm of grace, man is provided f o r by the organization and administration of the C h r i s t i a n church. He further suggested that i n d i v i d -uals as members of the realm of nature have many interests and that the u n i f i c a t i o n of these interests is provided f o r by the supreme, authority of the church. In any c o n f l i c t between the state and the i n d i v i d u a l , the church is to act as the a r b i t e r . Thus the two realms of nature and grace ate not conceived as mutually exclusive or incom-p a t i b l e . They are related to each other as two means to the same end. The purpose of the state i s to serve as an 3q. instrument whereby the church may more completely r e a l i z e the destiny of man. Thus we see that -Aquinas believed i n democracy only i n so f a r as relations between the i n d i v i d u a l and the temporal government were concerned. Democracy could not exist where the re l a t i o n s . o f the i n d i v i d u a l to the church were involved as the church was the f i n a l and supreme authority on a l l subjects.. Since his time, t h i s point has been a source of great c o n f l i c t between the church and governments. Even today i t remains an unsolved problem i n several Roman Catholic countries such as Spain and Mexico. In the twentieth century, we are i n c l i n e d to reject the l a t t e r part of t h i s view as well as the claims of the church to temporal authority. But there are two features of i t which have been incorporated into modern democratic theory and which make up an i n t r i n s i c part of that theory. • The most s i g n i f i c a n t is the doctrine of i n d i v i d -ualism. In democratic states, the- in d i v i d u a l i s considered the most important single f a c t o r . It is his w i l l as expressed through the w i l l of the majority which determines the p o l i c i e s of the state, and i t i s t h i s same w i l l which f i n a l l y rules on the manner i n which these p o l i c i e s are carried out. His rights are promoted and safeguarded by the state, at least i n theory i f not i n actual pr a c t i c e . The second" feature of St. Thomas' philseophy which we have absorbed flows out of the f i r s t . It i s the right of any man to possess private property of his own, a right which i s regarded as inalienable by democratic b e l i e v e r s . Because of t h e i r belief, i n t h i s r i g h t , both the Roman Catholic church and democracy are incompatible with Marxian Communism, even i f they were able to . ^ ^ r « c . : r on the subject of whether or not the state or the i n d i v i d -u a l i s superior to the other. The whole question of private property versus c o l l e c t i v i s m i s a troublesome one. Russell i n s i s t s that private property i s one of the two great e v i l s of the modern world. He i n s i s t s that i t i s the direc t cause of the worst forms of slavery and economic oppression. To him, the solution of the problem is a very important matter and he devoteS a great deal of time and space to a-discussion of i t . For t h i s reason, T s h a l l not consider the matter here, but w i l l reserve i t f o r a l a t e r section. The growth of modern democratic ideas flows d i r e c t l y from the development of the pr i n t i n g press and paper. Science has also helped by attacking the ancient' su p e r s t i t i o n s . With the collapse of feudalism and the spread of the Industrial Revolution people became more transient and gradually transferred t h e i r allegiance from t h e i r l o c a l l o r d t o the king. Thus the nation state arose. The king quickly adopted divine right ism, and soon the people became as opposed to the king as they had been i n HQ. * favor of him. With the r i s e of t h i s middle class there came a r e d i s t r i h u t i o n of economic power and gradually of p o l i t i -c a l power. Slowly, hut c l e a r l y , they began to r e a l i z e that they were not i n f e r i o r s and had a right to take part i n the government. One of the e a r l i e s t of democratic thinkers i n the English speaking world was John Locke. A very able p h i l o s -opher, his work has received more p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n than any other man since Aquinas. I n f l u e n t i a l by his w r i t -ings i n d i r e c t i n g the trend of eighteenth century Frenchmen l i k e V o l t a i r e and Rousseau, he was als.o held i n high esteem by Benjamin F r a n k l i n and Thomas Jefferson who incorporated many of Locke's ideas into the American c o n s t i t u t i o n . In hi s own country, he remained without honor u n t i l the nine-teenth century when his p r a c t i c a l influence was revived by the new l i b e r a l s . Locke was also the founder of associational psychology and made the f i r s t r e a l l y elaborate c l i n i c a l experiments. His p o l i t i c a l philosophy i s i n many ways a r e f u t -a t i o n of Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes, who preceeded Locke by about a generation, had postulated a state of nature i n which men, allowing t h e i r natural egoism to control them, ran wild and were constantly at each others throats. Realizing that they must chagge t h e i r way of l i f e i f they were to l i v e , men agreed to forego t h e i r right to k i l l H5U each other, and to mutually surredder t h e i r power to a state power. He c a l l e d t h i s the s o c i a l contract theory of p o l i t i c a l o bligation. According to i t government originates i n a contact among people whereby they give up t h e i r rights to one central source. This source must secure peace and security. For Hobbes, t h i s central source was a state ruled by !3oVSne£g.>$ty. The i n d i v i d u a l gives his r i g h t s to the state, except that of self-preservation, i n return f o r security and protection. He j u s t i f i e d t h i s sovereign power of the state on the basis of the unity, order, and protection that the state provides f o r i t s people. Despite the fact that he was one of the f i r s t men who t r i e d to r a t i o n a l l y j u s t i f y the authority of the state, the fact remains that Hobbes was not t r u l y democ-r a t i c , because he subordinated the freedom of the i n d i v i d -u a l to the power of the state, quite aside from h i s b e l i e f i n the v i t a l necessity of an a l l powerful.T«/teT. Locke begins his r e f u t a t i o n with the question of the nature of the state of nature Hobbes had postulated. He had more insight into the workings of the human-mind than his predecessor had, possible because of his interest i n psychology. He accepts the view that man emerged from t h i s state by way of a s o c i a l contract, but argues that i n a p r e - p o l i t i c a l state of society, humans would have an appreciation of t h e i r o b l i g a t i o n to act s o c i a l l y and and therefore i n such a state there would he moral obligations even though i t might not be possible for them to be exercised. He i n s i s t e d that human beings are fundamentally a l t r u i s t i c and sociable and that these q u a l i t i e s would persist even i n a state of nature. They would recognize and respect the r i g h t s of others, i f only i n the hope that t h e i r own rights would be respected in-turn. He adds that these r i g h t s owe t h e i r origins to e a s i l y ascertainable causes, the major one of which is the natural desire f o r self-preservation. Though men are thus l i v i n g i n a state of society i n which c e r t a i n primitive laws and c i v i l r i g h t s p r e v a i l , there are inconveniences which make i t highly desirable that some sort of government or p o l i t i c a l regime should be set up. These inconveniences are threefold. F i r s t , there i s no established, s e t t l e d , and knowulaw which is accepted by eommon consent as the standard of right and wrong and the common measure by which controversy maybe regulated. Second, there i s no known and impartial judge with authority to determine differences bewween people according to established laws. F i n a l l y , there i s often required a power to back up and support the sentence of the judge when i t i s right and to provide f o r i t s execution. He sums the s i t u a t i o n up admirably i n the following three paragraphs, ST."Man being born, as has been proved, with a t i t l e to perfect freedom, and an uncontrolled enjoyment of a l l the rights and pri v i l e g e s of the law of nature equally with any other man or number of men i n the world, hath by nature a power not only to preserve his property-that i s his l i f e , l i b e r t y , and estate-against the i n j u r i e s and attempts of other men, but to judge of and punish the breaches of that law i n others as he i s perstiaded the offense deserves, even with death i t s e l f , i n crimes where the heinousness of the fact i n his opinion deserves i t . But because no p o l i t i c a l society can be nor subsist without having i n i t s e l f the power to preserve the. property, and, i n order thereunto, punish the offenses of a l l those of that society, ther$, and there only, is p o l i t i c a l society, where every one of the members have quitted t h i s natural power, resigned i t up into the hands of the community i n a l l cases that exclude him not f o r appealing f o r protection to the law established by i t ; and thus a l l private judgement of every p a r t i c u l a r member being excluded, the community comes to be umpire; and by understanding d i f f e r e n t rules and men authorized by t h e i r community f o r t h e i r execution, decides a l l the differences that may happen between any member of that society concerning any matter of ri g h t , and punishes those offenses which any member hath committed against the society with such penalties as the law has established; whereby i t i s easy to discern who are and who are not i n p o l i t i c a l society together. Those who are united into one body, and have a common established law and judicature to appeal to, with authority to decide controversies between them and punish offenders, are i n c i v i l society one with another, but those who have no such common a p p e a l — I mean on earth--are s t i l l i n the state of nature, each being, where there is no other, judge f o r himself and executioner, which i s , as I have before shown i t , the perfect state of nature. 88. And thus the commonwealth comes by a power to set down what punishment s h a l l belong to the several transgressions which they think worthy of i t committed amongst the members of that society, which i s the power of making laws, as well as i t has the power to punish any injury done unto any of i t s members by anyone that is not of i t , which i s the power of war and peace; and a l l t h i s f o r the preservation of the property of a l l the members of that society as f a r as i t is possible. But though every man enetered into c i v i l society, has quitted his power to punish offenses against the law of nature i n prosecution of his own private judgement, yet with the judgement of offenses, \yhich he has given up to the l e g i s l a t i v e i n a l l cases where he can appeal to the magistrate, he has given a right to the common wealth to employ his force f o r the execution of the judgements og the commonwealth whenever he s h a l l be . ca l l e d to i t ; which, indeed, are his own judgements, they being made by himself or his representative. And herein we have the o r i g i n a l of the executive and l e g i s l a t i v e power of c i v i l society, which is to judge by standing laws, how f a r offenses are to be punished when committed within the commonwealth, and also by occasional judgements founded on the present circumstances of the f a c t , how f a r i n j u r i e s from without are to be vindicated; and i n both of these to employ a l l the force of a l l the members when there s h a l l be need. 89. Wherever, therefore, any number of men so unite dnto one society, as to quit everyone his executive power of the law of nature, and to resign i t to the public, there, and there only, is a p o l i t i c a l , or c i v i l society. And t h i s i s done wherever any number of men, i n the state of nature, enter into society to make one people, one body p o l i t i c , under one supreme government, or else when anyone joins himself to and incorporates with,any government already made. For hereby he authorises the society, or, which i s a l l one,- the l e g i s l a t i v e t her of, to make laws f o r him, as as the public good of the society s h a l l require, to the execution whereof his own assistance ( as to his own decrees) is due. Arid t h i s puts men out of a state of nature into that of a commonwealth, by s e t t i n g up a judge on earth . with authority to determine a l l the controversies and redress the i n j u r i e s that may happen to any member of the commonwealth; which judge i s the l e g i s l a t i v e , or magistrates appointed by i t . And wherever there are any number of men however associated, that have no such decisive power to' appeal to, there they?, are s t i l l in the state of nature." ( 1 . ) Locke was the earliest exponent of the doctrine is one of the leading exponents of the same bel ief today. The t i e between the two l ies in the writings of James and John Stuart M i l l , who in the last centtiry were the main believers the power of the state. Russ l l l commences his review of democracy by mentioning that there are three conceptions of the democratic state. The f i r s t is the la isser- fa ire type of state in which private enterprise and free iniative are the main theme. Organization is regarded as an ev i l and each man is expected to sink or swim as best he can. The second is the social service state. Here the state recognizes certain responsibil i t ies to i ts members. For example the B r i t i s h Reform B i l l s , part icularly the earl ier ones, were only a system of mild handouts by the government. Such a state is not progressive " as it functions as a charitable ins t i tut ion . The third conception is that of the co l lect iv i s t state. Marx said the working classes would eventually take over the instruments of production. The essence of collectivism is the rais ing of the standard of l i v ing for everybody, not for just a few. According to Russell none of these doctrines are adequate, as each one leaves a great deal to be desired. which came to be known as Liberalism, and certainly Russell in the freedom and l iberty of the individual as opposed to Mane had said thatn power could not he equalized by democ-racy while economic power remained concentrated i n the hands of a few. Therefore economics must be i n the hands of the state and the state must be democratic. Russell c r i t i c i z e s modern Communism f o r keeping only the f i r s t h a l f of t h i s doctrine by concentrating both p o l i t i c s and economics i n the state. The result i s an oligarchy or one man tyranny as we have seen. In his views on democracy, Russell's p o l i t i c a l and economic philosophies overlap each other. The concept of power overshadows a l l of his writings. He believes that possessiveness is e v i l because i t promotes the power of "one man over another. On t h i s basis he condemns, as we s h a l l f i n d i n a l a t e r chapter, not only nineteenth century competitive ®af i talisn^cDut'ialsa contemporary monopolistic capitalism and state socialism. He concludes that one i s as bad as the other. On the purely p o l i t i c a l side, he concludes that democracy is the only system which allows the greates"famount of freedom to the i n d i v i d u a l , a freedom which Russell considers almost sacred. Modern democracy i n pra c t i c e , however, has one great f a u l t which he finds i t impossible to overlook. This is i t s l a i s s e r - f a i r e a t titude to war. He says that democracy is the only p o l i t i c a l organization i n the world today that does not either a c t i v e l y support or a c t i v e l y combat the holding of private property and the waging of war. Both of these, he adds, are incompatihle with the l i b e r t y of the in d i v i d u a l , because while they exist and are encouraged, he is a slave to them and has no l i b e r t y . Everywhere i n Russell t h i s word l i b e r t y keeps re-appearing. He considers that the Continental and English schools of philosophical xsci*±B:scx±snc l i b e r a l i s m which developed i n the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries are the direct forerunners of modern democracy, p a r t i c u l a r l y as i t has been elaborated i n the United States. The En g l i s h l i b e r a l s were s o e i a l hedonists. They believed that a l l wen were born equal and thus had a right to expect equal opportunity. Quite romantic by nature, they tended to stress f e e l i n g and the emotions rather than reason, and di d t h i s by the use of such catch words as tyrant, slave, etc. They stood f o r r e l i g i o u s t o l e r a t i o n , republicanism, freedom of the press and of opinion, and at the same time emphasized the importance of economics i n s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l l l i f e . Among the e a r l i e r l i b e r a l s , the most important element i n t h e i r creed was t h e i r b e l i e f that a l l nations must be free from foreign domination. Gradually t h i s developed into the p r i n c i p l e of ftatiorial'ity. A nation cameto be defined as a geographic group possessed of a sentiment of s o l i d a r i t y due to common language, custom, interest or descent. This sentiment was held as the only 5d. essential, to nationhood. The M e a n a d started i n a primitive form when Henry VIII had released the country from the shcakles of Rome. It continued under Elizabeth as the country became at the same time more prosperous and more smug. The English, though, reacted to the growth of German and American indastrAalism with h y s t e r i c a l Imperialism , thus antagonizing the l i b e r a l elements within t h e i r own country that s t i l l believed onenation should not be subjug-ated to another. In France the change was more tortuous. It was not u n t i l a f t e r the revolution of 1848, that i t i was even safe to express l i b e r a l ideas. The years following saw a regular crusade f o r ideas swaep the country. Out of t h i s crusade grew the con s t i t u t i o n of France as a democracy i n JL8&1.. The fact that France has not been able to remain true to these ideas has nothing to do with the ideas themselves, but is due to a host of other reasons. The ^mpierment of the people, constant wars, corruption from within, etc., have a l l done t h e i r share to undermine the constructive working out of the o r i g i n a l ideas of freedom and l i b e r t y which had been so strongly believed i n . Russell states that the two great sources of modern democracy are c l a s s i c a l and Protestant. For example, pre-revolutionary France was inspired by the c l a s s i c x^u^-^t, /fc^j^VjC****-*,^^^.f^Uy^,-^ Herodutas and Tacitus. The history of d i s t i n c t l y Protestant countries i s one, f i r s t of revolt against the power of the papacy, and then against the c i v i l power. Protestant statesmen combined democratic p r i n c i p l e s with t h e i r assertion of the r i g h t s of the i n d i v i d u a l , to procure at the same time both a theory of government and a theory of the l i m i t s of i t s power. This i s e s s e n t a i l l y what we now mean by democracy: A government pledged to guarantee the l i b e r t y of i t s people. ,. The great American democrat was Thomas Jefferson, often c a l l e d the founder of t h i s theory i n the United States. He was strongly influenced by John Locke, Sydney , an opponent of the Stuarts, as well as by many u n i d e n t i f i e d emigres from Cromwells army. He wrote the Declaration of Independance and l a t e r became the f i r s t president who honestly t r i e d to establish democracy, be l i e v i n g that man was a r a t i o n a l animal and endowed by nature with an innate sense of j u s t i c e . He i n s i s t e d that every man knows by his conscience what i t i s right to do, and i t i s only necessary f o r the happiness of a l l that each man follow the dictates of his own conscience. If he has l i b e r t y he w i l l do t h i s . Laws are made to guide the exceptions along the right path. Unfortunately, Jefferson was not allowed to do exactly as he pleased and was curbed.in many of his ideas by a r i v a l party led by Alexander Hamilton. The res u l t was a sort of compromise. Jefferson 6*s ' - * succeeded i n molding the p o l i t i c a l character of the c o n s t i t -ution, hut Hamilton succeeded i n seeing that the c o n s t i t u t i o n protected capitalism and private property. Many of the e v i l s of democracy which were to come into heing at a l a t e r date were not foreseen by t h i s con-s t i t u t i o n . The party system was s t i l l only i n i t s infancy and the infamous part which i t was to play i n democratic hi s t o r y did not become apparent f o r some years. Nor was i t evident that as c i v i l i z a t i o n became more and more complex, the d i f f i c u l t y over what government should control and what i t whould not control would a r i s e . The'development of a bureaucratic state could not possibly have been forseen at that time. It is not with the p r i n c i p l e or the theory of democracy that Russell quarrels, but with the way. i n which i t is carried out i n p r a c t i c e . He has not the same f a i t h i n an 'innate sense of ju s t i c e ' as Jefferson had and believes that i f freedom and l i b e r t y are to be preser-ved, more concrete methods w i l l have to be adopted to do X. t he j ob . He:isays,"Democracy, as a method of government i s subject to some l i m i t a t i o n s which are es s e n t i a l , and to others which are, i n p r i n c i p l e , ?-avoidable. The e s s e n t i a l l i m i t a t i o n s arise c h i e f l y from two sources; some decisions must be speedy,and others require expert knowledge....... * Owing to these essential limitations,, many of the most Important matter must he entrusted by the electorate to the government. Democracy i s successful i n so f a r as the government i s obliged to respect public opinion.-The moral i s that a democracy,, since i t i s compelled to entrust power to elected representatives, cannot f e e l any security that,, i n a revolutionary s i t u a t i o n , i t s representatives w i l l continue to represent i t s wishes.-.-.. This i s not to say that there i s a better form og govern ment than democracy. ...The d i f f i c u l t y »'f democracy as a form of government is that i t demands a readiness f o r compromise. The beaten party must... . y i e l d . . .the majority must not press the advantage ...This requires practice,* respect f o r the law,, and the habit of beli e v i n g that opinions other than one*s own may not he a profif of wickedness...Given these conditions, democracy i s capable of being the saost stable form of government hithe r t o devised." (. J. Power, V&£38 191,198,193 and 194. 54. Chapter Four. War And Private Property, 6£ I have placed tw» apparently irrelevant subjects together i n the same chapter, because of the i n t e r - r e l a t i o n and the importance which Russell himself assigns to them. In his opinion these are the two great f a u l t s of modern democracy i n practice, which he points out takes a l a i s s e r -f a i r e attitude towards them. He declares that the democ-r a t i c state at the present time i s the only p o l i t i c a l ideology which does not either a c t i v e l y support or oppose these two e v i l s . In addition, he adds, the state deliberate-l y attempts to influence public opinion regarding war and private property by the use of propaganda, education and r e l i g i o n . To end war, he i n s i s t s that private land and c a p i t a l must go, but there are other causes which are more important than these and which are overlooked by most p o l i t i c a l t h e o r i s t s . War i s not caused by. govern-mental ambition , economic forces, or diplomatic tangles, but by human nature. Russell considers that war is another form of i n s t i t u t i o n , comparable to some of our accepted p o l i t i c a l i n s t i t u t i o n s . He asserts that i f men would only awaken to the intense harm done them by war they could eventually succeed i n abolishing i t , and then he goes on to show how t h i s could "be1 done. "War i s a c o n f l i c t between two groups, each of which attempts to k i l l and maim as many as possible of the other group i n order to acheive some object which i t desires. The object i s generally either power or wealth. It is a pleasure to exercise authority over other men and i t is pleasant to l i v e on the produce of other men's lahour. The v i c t o r i n war can enjoy more of these delights than the vanquished. But war, l i k e a l l other natural act-i v i t i e s , , is not so-much prompted by the end which i t has i n view as by an Impulse to the a c t i v i t y ^ftsslsilf. Very often men desire an end, but because t h e i r nature demands the actions which w i l l lead to the end. And so i t i s i n t h i s case, the ends to be achieved by war appear i n prospect f a r more important than they w i l l appear when they are r e a l i z e d , because war i t s e l f is a f u l f i l m e n t of one side of our nature. If man's action sprang from desires f o r what would i n fact bring happiness, the purely r a t i o n a l arguments against war would have long ago put an end to i t . What makes war d i f f i c u l t to suppress i s that i t springs from an impulse rather than from a c a l c u l a t i o n of the advantages to be derived from i t . " (1.) There is a d i s t i n c t i o n between force as exerted by the police and force as used i n international r e l a t i o n s . In the former case, such force is usually ordered by a neutral authority endowed with t h i s power. In the l a t t e r case, force is employed by one community against another without any regard to the a r b i t r a t i o n of a neutral power. Russell thinks that a c e r t a i n amount of force ~r-exercised by fhe police i n i n t e r n a l disputes is necessary, and that a s i m i l a r use., of force i n international r e l a t i o n s 1. P r i n c i p l e s of S o c i a l Reconstruction, Pages 77-78. i s the best hope of permanent peace. Most countries contain two forces which co-operat to produce war. The f i r s t of these i s the small group of men who are aware of war at a l l times. E i t h e r they are naturally b e l l i c o s e and l i k e war f o r war's sake or they stand to p r o f i t i n terms of power or wealth by war. The second force i s the large number of ordinary people who pay no heed to the prospect of war when there isn't one, and immediately become seized with a-sort of war fever when one seems Imminent. This fever i s an outburst of patriotism by people who are convinced that they have right and j u s t i c e on t h e i r side' and that the enemy i s envious of the superior achievements of t h e i r country or state. Russell f e e l s that the two main c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of nations at war are pride and envy. Pride on the part of the country that has what i t wants, and envy on the part of the country that has not. P r i o r to both World Wars, t h i s was the s i t u a t i o n which prevailed i n England and Germany. The l a t t e r f e l t that B r i t a i n , by her great expansion, had stunted the growth of Hermany. B r i t a i n , on the other hand, was proud of what she had accomplished and secure i n the b e l i e f that her p a r t i c u l a r area of the world would remain the same f o r ever. Hot with envy of B r i t a i n ' s possessions, and i n f u r i a t e d by her acceptance of t h i s arrangement as a natural. priveledge and her patronage of lesser countries, Germany determined to upset the status quo. The result was catast-rophic and, according to Russell, wholly unnecessary. Both countries were forced by t h e i r national pride to fi g h t to the b i t t e r end. Peace at any time during the war would have been more desirable and unquestionably more pr o f i t a b l e to both countries. "The utmost e v i l that the enemy could i n f l i c t through an unfavorable peace would be a t r i f l e compared to the e v i l which a l l nations i n f l i c t upon themselves by continuing to f i g h t . What blinds us to t h i s obvious fact is pride, the pride which makes the ack-nowledgement of defeat i n t o l e r a b l e , and clothes i t s e l f i n the garb of reason by suggesting a l l sorts of el&ils which which are supposed to result from admitting defeat. But the only e v i l of defeat is humiliation, and humiliation i s subjective; we s h a l l not f e e l humilated i f we become persuaded that i t was a Mistake to enter the war, and that i t is better to pursue other tasks not dependant on world dominion." (S.) Most wars are fought i n an attempt to upset the status quo. The concept of permanent peace has unfortunate-l y come to be associated v/ith the maintenance of the e x i s t -ing state of things. The very nature of things makes t h i s impossible. Society i s continually growing and changing and allowances must be made f o r these changes. The status £. P r i n c i p l e s of S o c i a l Reconstruction. quo must be f l e x i b l e enough to bend to accomodate these changes. Russell claims that t h i s f l e x i b i l i t y can only be guaranteed by an international organization, backed up by force to support i t s decisions. Such a parliament of nations must have f u l l power to make d i f f i c u l t t d e c i s i o n s , to a l t e r the d i s t r i b u t i o n of t e r r i t o r y and wealth, and i t is only i n t h i s way that m i l i t a r i s m can be permanently overcome. So f a r , I have discussed only how Russell thinks wars originate and how he thinks they might be overcome. Many of his xstsscst c r i t i c s assert that these opinions are too i d e a l i s t i c and that he expects too much from human nature. It is said that his ideas could only become e f f e c t -ive i f man were to bring reason into every f i e l d of thought, and rationalism always triumphed over emotionalism. A c t u a l l y t h i s i s not the case. Few people r e a l i z e better than he that the basic trouble we have to combat is the ennui of the common man. The common man leads a l i f e which i s u t t e r l y devoid of adventure or r i s k . He has a regular income from some occupation i n which the fear of dismissal or f a i l u r e i s at a minimum. He i s insured against death or sickness, and thus is secure as long as he continues to remain i n his own narrow, rut. Unfortunately, security creates a nemesis of ennui. L i f e i s no longer romantic or in t e r e s t i n g , and has become only d u l l . This same man, however, belongs to a nation, and i n a c e r t a i n sense he shares i n the successes and sufferings of his nation. For years he has been caught i n a web of private cautions and regular performance of duties which have come to be abhorent because of t h e i r very r e g u l a r i t y , i t is with a joyous f e e l i n g of release that he w i l l support his nation when i t plunges into public madness. It i s p a t r i o t i c to be reckless f o r the nation whereas i t i s wicked to be reckless i n personal a f f a i r s . A l l vigorous men need some sort of a c t i v i t y , some sort of f e e l i n g of having met resistance and overcome i t . The problem then i s to create an a c t i v i t y which w i l l s a tiate t h i s primitive urge by some other means than the destruction of c i v i l -i z a t i o n . One of the ways by which we are already doing t h i s is in our s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l c o n f l i c t s . Though many men tend to deprecate these c o n f l i c t s , Russell f e e l s that they f u l f i l l a very necessary function, as they increase men's interest i n public a f f a i r s , and at the same time do very l i t t l e r e a l harm. He also considers that i n a democratic community, every voter has a l i t t l e of the monotony of his l i f e removed by the sense of i n i a t ive and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y which the casting of his b a l l o t gives to him. Obviously these interests are not enough. I f the impulse to wage war existent i n ami men i s to be permanently eliminated, some form of a c t i v i t y much more intense than either of these w i l l have to be devised Russell does not venture any suggestion as to what t h i s a c t i v i t y might he. The subject i s r e a l l y one that belongs to the f i e l d of ethics a n 4 i n v o i v e s a change i n our whole manner of existence. What he does say i s that i t must be supplied i t we are Survive at a l l . The second r e a l enemy of c i v i l i z a t i o n both i n the past and i n the present is the concept of private property. He believes that the tremendous influence private property has had on the history of the world i s atte s t e d to, not only by i t s s o c i a l and psychological ramigications i n the l i f e of a l l mankind, but i n the inroads i t has made into world culture as w e l l . Under existing conditions, the grim necessity of acquiring enough of t h i s world's goods to clothe and feed oneself is one of the starker, but ever present r e a l i t i e s . When the craving f o r material possessions becomes a r e l i g i o u s passion, i t ceases to r e t a i n any of the aspects of decency or r e s p e c t a b i l i t y , and freq.-uently causes mental or moral decay. Conversely, t h i s same decay of l i f e promotes a b e l i e f i n the value of material goods. People who worship money, unless they are abnormal, are interested i n i t f o r what i t can procure, and they have come to regard happiness as merely the enjoyment of the external pleasure which money can provide. They have ceased'rto expect happiness as the 1%. reward of t h e i r own direct a c t i v i t i e s , hut rather as an ind i r e c t reward dependant on the a c q u i s i t i o n of wealth. A person who takes a r e a l and v i t a l interest i n his work receives his happiness from sources within himself. For him, money does not possess the same meaning. Russell seems to l i m i t t h i s to a seleet group of a r t i s t s and lovers, But I think i t can he quite safely expanded to include a l l those who receive r e a l s a t i s f a c t i o n from t h e i r work, irre g a r l e s s of what t h i s work,is. We have seen that t h i s worship of money i s both a cause and an effect of decay. The next step i s to r e f l e c t on how our present, system might be remodelled i n order to increase the general v i t a l i t y and eliminate decay. There can be no objection to those who s t r i v e f o r a certa i n amount of economic independance i n order that they may have time i n the future to pursue a worthy and reasonable desire, f o r i n t h i s case, t h e i r aim has a d e f i n i t e f i n i t e l i m i t . On the contrary, i t i s the worshippers that are important. Yet, t h i s worship i s opposed to human nature since i t prevents growth and expansion and ignores s i g n i f i c a n t elements i n •mankind which are counter to the amassing of money. Men s t i n t t h e i r own pe r s o n a l i t i e s , "because of t h i s inaccurate concept of success. At the same time, they aid i n the promotion of a nervous stress and s t r a i n which t i r e s out everybody and generally weakens any co-operative community undertaking. Perhaps, worst of a l l , is the fact that men w i l l throw a l l t h e i r strength and energy, mentally, physically, and f i n a n c i a l l y , into enterprises which cannot possibly add anything to the general welfare of t h e i r fellowmen and may even deter from that welfare. Russell dismisses i n several di f f e r e n t places, and at some length, the extent which t h i s worship of money has reached i n England and America. He f e e l s that the class of money worshippers now v a s t l y outnumbers those who do not belong to i t . ffere he seems to be givi n g away to his usual tendency to exaggerate when r e f e r r i n g to America. Russell is frequently a v i c t i m of the conventional English a t t i t u d e towards the United States and he finds i t very d i f f i c u l t to overcome t h i s . He makes sweeping statements about Americans as a whole. Such generalizations can not be t r u l y made about any race or nation, expecially a nation so ridden with s o c i a l class consciousness as the United States. The s o c i a l and psychological effects of t h i s love f o r money seem to vary with d i f f e r e n t nations and races. In America i t has resulted i n the desire to i n f i n i t e l y increase the amount of one's wealth. P r i o r to the C i v i l War, the United States thought i t s prosperity was due to free compet-i t i o n . But with the improvement i n technique, the system became one i n which one or.two vast corporations controlled most of the important industries. In the o i l race, Standard O i l , p i l o t e d by Rockefeller, obtained a complete monopoly i n America and began spreading to other parts of the world. Gradually and inevitably, America became an organi-zation ruled by a small group of r i c h men f o r t h e i r own p r o f i t . It was an excellent organization, but i t s purpose was a l l wrong. W.H.Vanderbilt says i t i s impossible to enact l e g i s l a t i o n which w i l l keep such men down, and Russell agress with him, within the l i m i t s of the c a p i t a l i s t i c system. The s o l u t i o n l i e s , not i n a more absolute plutoc-racy, nor i n a return to economic anarchy, but i n public ownership and control of the machine which finance has created. In England the effects of t h i s love f o r money take the form of a desire to be s o c i a l l y correct. You must have the right number of rooms and servants i n your home. In courtshipn or marriage, aside from the over-whelming r e s t r i c t i o n s of the s o c i a l class system, you must also observe an i n f i n i t e number of t r a d i t i o n a l conventions. In order that children may be sent to the proper public schools, often inexcusably bad, the parents w i l l deliberate-l y l i m i t the size of t h e i r f a m i l i e s and make any number of personal s a c r i f i c e s . The stupendous e f f o r t which men and women make, and the amazing quantity of s e l f d i s c i p l i n e which they display i n t h i s struggle are a credit to them. It i s sad that a l l t h i s energy should he exerted hot f o r any constructive end, hut only to make t h e i r own perso n a l i t i e s shallow and narrow. Here, the f i n a n c i a l l e v e l of society i s very s t a t i c . It i s not easy to b u i l d up a vast fortune, but the majority of the people belong to the reasonably well to do middle c l a s s . As a result many people in h e r i t a small competence. Once having received t h i s , the trend seems to be of the utmost t h r i f t . Instead of spending t h e i r money, they i?ry to hand i t down to the. next generation. A l l inherited property i s divided by law among the family and i t has become a s o c i a l necessity that a French g i r l be provided wjl'th a dot. These things have combined to make the family a v i t a l and powerful i n s t i t u t i o n . This love of safety and security has meant that the family has been l i m i t e d i n size as well as i n outlook. The tendency to maintain the status quo produced by t h i s type of society coupled with the decline of the population was d i r e c t l y responsible f o r the decline of France during the inter-war period. In Germany the worship of money i s associated with the state. The man who builds up a successful business i s performing a service to the state. This was not only a policy of the National S o c i a l i s t party, bat i t i s an a t t i t -ude which has existed i n Germany ever since i t s u n i f i c a t i o n by the Franco-Prussian war. In some ways they are merely In France there i s a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n . copying B r i t a i n . Germans have long held the b e l i e f that the triumphant p o s i t i o n of B r i t a i n i s due to her industrialism and her intense nationalism, and they have t r i e d to create these q u a l i t i e s within t h e i r own boundaries ^ >, Russell remarks with sorrow that i n t h e i r attempt to do t h i s , they appear to have lost that mastery of the f i n e arts which they had to a much greater extent than the neighbors they are so envious of. He points out that there has hardly been a l i t e r a r y , musical or a r t i s t i c master-piece come out of Germany i n the l a s t forty years which can compare with t h e i r e f f o r t s i n the eighteenth and nine-teenth centuries. During the la s t 4§w years, they have become a race of robots and i t is u n l i k e l y that enough i n d i v i d u a l i t y w i l l be revived among them f o r some time to come to produce anything r e a l l y noteworthy. It i s not possible to estimate at present how much the World War just concluded has changed or w i l l change the s i t u a t i o n i n these countries. In America we may expect the change to he s l i g h t , though already labour is asserting i t s e l f i n a manner i t would not have dared to t r y ten years ago. In England class l i n e s have been broken down somewhat and perhaps they w i l l not be so r i g i d i n the future. France and Germany have both been put under such gigantic physical and emotional s t r a i n that interest i n wealth and property has disappeared under the stress of 4<f. more fundamentally b i o l o g i c a l needs l i k e food and clothing. In both of these countries the necessity to f i g h t d a i l y f o r the bare preservation of l i f e w i l l probably develop a s i m i l a r type of person as was developed by the French Revolution; a callous, b r u t a l person, ind i f f e r e n t to the wants or needs of others. Russell also takes i n f i n i t e care to point out that t h i s worship of wealth i s f a r more harmful now than i t used to be f o r several reasons. Industrialism has made work les s i n t e r e s t i n g on the one hand, and massive armies and navies more possible on the other. People are better educated and d i s c i p l i n e d , enabling them to hang on to an unworthy purpose i n l i f e with more tenacity than formerly. These things have gradually come to be recognized as harmful by various groups of people with the result that new p o l i t i c a l movements inspired by economic desires have sprung up. These groups are a l l more or less concerned with judging the i n d u s t r i a l system. Russell considers that there are four points of view from which such a judgement may be made. We may ask whether the system secures the maximum amount of production, of j u s t i c e i n di s t r i b u t i o n , , and a tolerable existence f o r the men who are the producers. Fourthly, we may ask i f i t secures the greates"tpossible freedom and encouragement f o r progress. A c a p i t a l i s t i c regime i s naturally interested i n the f i r s t -of these objects. Growing s o c i a l i s t i c movements are making the second and t h i r d the f o c a l point of t h e i r i n t e r e s t . But there is no group or organized system supporting the fourth object. Russell i n s i s t s that the encouragement of progress i s essential to industrialism i f i t i s to survive. Yet both the present system and planned s o c i a l i s t -i c reforms are i n s u f f i c i e n t . The former looks at i t only from the side of production and the owner c a p i t a l i s t , while, the s o c i a l i s t s look at i t only from the side of the employees. The present system has given r i s e to a widespread b e l i e f that production i s the only factor that matters. No one concerns themselves any more than they have to with what i s produced, nor do any but the workers care how much sorrow and suffering go into i t s production. $he tendency i s towards s a c r i f i c e of everything, l i f e , health, etc., i f need be, i n order to maintain and increase production. This gluttonous desire has resulted i n men fo r g e t t i n g many things that are more s i g n i f i c a n t . Russell believes that a f t e r we have produced enough food and elothing f o r everybody, we would be wiser to cut down on our production so that people would have more l e i s u r e time to enjoy the f r u i t s of t h e i r labors. Production, a f t e r a l l , i s just l i k e everything else. There i s a point beyond which i t cannot go. We are rapidly exhausting not only our minerals and f o r e s t s , hut even the very s o i l i t s e l f , to say nothing of the deterior-a t i o n of the human element involved. With the tremendous upsurge of production that the war has brought, p a r t i c u l -a r l y i n North America, future generations face almost c e r t a i n hardships unless we start vast conservation and preservat-ion schemes i n the immediate future. Russell regards the i n j u s t i c e of our present system of d i s t r i b u t i o n as inevitable no matter how you look at i t . Never i n the history of man has the right to the produce of his own labour been commonly supported by the law. Though early s o c i a l i s t s i n s i s t e d on t h i s r i g h t , i t has now become obsolete, as the maunfacturing mass-production setup makes such a p r i n c i p l e untenable. Further there are physical differences between workers which automatically enable the stronger person to produce more and i t seems hardly f a i r to encourage these i n the name of economic j u s t i c e . He- i n s i s t s that a great deal of the power which appears to belong, to fcs^ctfgners a c t u a l l y belongs to landowners, and refers f o r example to mines. He further points out that i t i s a s i g n i f i c a n t example of the patience and i n e r t i a of men that they continue to endure the tyranny and exploitation which are practiced on them by those who own the land. The only h i s t o r i c a l basis f o r private property is the feudal one of conquest hy the sword. It is strange that such an unnatural process should become so consolidated i n men's minds as to reach the heighth of complexity and s t a b i l i t y i t has attained i n our c i v i l i z a t i o n . A b o l i t i o n of the right to possess land would not solve the problem, since the necessity of distinguishing between good and bad land would s t i l l remain. For t h i s reason there must, be rent on a l l land, but i t must be paid to some i n s t i t u t i o n which i s organ-ized to perform public services such as the state. I f any of t h i s money were l e f t over a f t e r operating expenses had been deducted, i t could be divided among a l l the rent payers. Inheritance would disappear, and r i g h t l y so, Russell f e e l s that the class of people who l i v e on inherited wealth are gencaeally harmful to a l l society. They are a f r a i d both of reform and of thinking c l e a r l y since they know t h e i r p o s i t i o n is undeniably wrong. Yet, because they are wealthy and can establish a world of a r t i f i c i a l manners and opinions which seems to be superior to naturalness, they have c o l l e c t e d a large group of followers, p a r t i c u l a r l y among the middle classes. l i t t l e f a i t h can be placed i n the theory that men would not work as well i f they could not w i l l t h e i r property to t h e i r dependants and descendants. We have long since learned that the mass of work i s done f o r "bread and butter, while a l l exceptionally good work i s done f o r the pleasure of doing i t . This is indisputable i f one examines a l l of the r e a l l y excellent work which has been done in any f i e l d . In s c i e n t i f i c research, there are;, incidents l i k e the discovery of radium by the Curies; i n a r t , music, l i t e r a t u r e , and sculpture, examples are too numerous to need mentioning. In architecture we have the magnificent English cathedrals of the middle ages, b u i l t by a people who loved t h e i r work, because they loved t h e i r r e l i g i o n . Apparently the same rule p r e v a i l s i n a l l f i e l d s , i f we wish to pursue the matter further. I t would be i n t e r e s t i n g at t h i s point to discuss the attitudes of various p o l i t i c a l ideologies towards these problems, but our ends w i l l be much better served i f we consider these by themselves, without s p e c i f i c reference to the questions which have been considered i n t h i s chapter. The trouble with the present system i s that the in t e r e s t s of consumer, producer, and c a p i t a l i s t are mutually exclusive. Russell points out that co-operation would combine the interests of consumer and c a p i t a l i s t ; syndicalism would combine the interests of producer and c a p i t a l i s t , but neither would amalgsFfc* the interests of 7* a l l three. Feather,ttherefore, would prevent i n d u s t r i a l s t r i f e , hut either would he preferable to the present system,and perhaps a mixture of both would put an end to many of our present troubles. 73. Chapter Five. Communism. 74. "By f a r the most important aspect of the Russian Revolution is an attempt to r e a l i z e Communism. I believe that Communism is necessary to the world, and I believe that the heriosm of Russiaihas f i r e d men's hopes i n a way which was essential to the r e a l i z a t i o n of Communism i n the future. Regarded as a splendid attempt, without which ultimate success would have been very improbable, Bolshevism deserves the gratitude and fctfeilration of a l l the progressive part of mankind. But the method by which Moscow aims at es t a b l i s h -ing Communism i s a pioneer method, rough and dangerous, too heroic to count the cost of the opposition i t arouses. I do not believe that by t h i s method a stable or desirable form of Communism can be established. Three issues seems to me possible from the present s i t u a t i o n . The f i r s t i s the ultimate defeat of Bolshevism by the forces of capit-alism. The second is the v i c t o r y of the Bolshevists accompanied by a complete loss of t h e i r ideals and a regime of Napoleonic imperialism. The t h i r d i s a prolonged world war, i n which c i v i l i z a t i o n w i l l go under, and a l l i t s manifestations (including Communism) w i l l be forgotten. " ( 1 . ) These are the words with/which Russell commences his report on the p o l i t i c a l philosophy known as Communism, as i t i s being put into^practice i n the Soviet Union. There is i n them no attempt to evade the significance 1. Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, Page 6. 0j> Communism as a new p o l i t i c a l f a i t h . Russell recognizes i t s importance and prepares to consider i t as such a major ideology ought to be considered. There can be no question that Communism i s philosophical. Its theories of d i a l e c t i c a l and h i s t o r i c a l materialism originated with early m a t e r i a l i s t i c philosophers such as Hobbes, and more p a r t i c u l a r l y with Hegel and his new d i a l e c t i c a l proceedure. As a philosophy i t has been elaborated by the work of such men as Feuerbach, Marx, Engels, Lenin, and to a very much lesser extent, Trotsky and S t a l i n . In our own time, we are perhaps too close to Communism to be able to study i t imp a r t i a l l y . Yet, i f we are to understand i t , we must at least attempt to do t h i s . When we examine the.foundations and bases of • the theories which are accepted i n present day Russia, we f i n d that the movement is d e f i n i t e l y owe which i s r e l i g i o u s i n i t s derivation as well as i n i t s organizat-ion. Communism contains as many doctrines and dogmas as any of the more orthodox b e l i e f s . It has just as much r i t u a l , and ce r t a i n l y with reference to many things, i t demands the expression of emotions which are just as intense i f not more so as the sacred passions which C h r i s t i a n i t y t r i e s to kindle. The nature of i t s meta-physics includes elements which are decidedly dogmatic and a r b i t r a r y . A few years a f t e r the f i r s t World War, Russell wrote,"-The war has l e f t throughout Europe a mood of disillusionment and despair" (2.) These then are the things the new r e l i g i o n o f f e r s . This .isnthe hope that Communism has extended to a su f f e r i n g nation. Russell says of t h i s hope, "I cannot share the hopes of the Bolsheviks any more than those of the Egypt-ian anchorites; I regard both as trag i c delusions, destined to bring upon the world centuries of darkness and f u t i l e violence7(3.) A f t e r such a posit i v e statement as t h i s , a detailed explanation is needed and Russell hastens to provide i t . He begins by pointing out that the fundamental teachings of C h r i s t i a n i t y are en t i r e l y admirable, but that they have r a r e l y ever been put into practice. Instead of turning the other cheek, they learned,"...to use the I n q u i s i t i o n and the stake, to s\ibject the human i n t e l l e c t to the yoke of an ignorant and intolerant priesthood, to degrade art and extinguish science f o r a thousand years."(4.) 2. Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, Page 17. 3. Ib i d , Page 15-16. 4. Ibid, Page 16. 77-These horrors were due to the fanaticism whith which C h r i s t -i a n i t y was practiced. Russell adds that the teachings of Communism are every h i t as admirable, hut w i l l no doubt end in a s i m i l a r way. Fanatics w i l l always s a c r i f i c e every-thing, even human l i f e to further the cause f o r which they are f i g h t i n g . Thus, they are l i a b l e to sponsor the most h o r r i b l e c r u e l t i e s i n order to achieve t h e i r ends. A few years ago a man of lenient d i s p o s i t i o n might have f e l t that the c i v i l i z e d society of the western world had reached a point of development i n i t s evolutionary pattern where such conditions as Russell portrays,-could not e x i s t . He might have i n s i s t e d that Communism could never follow the t r a i l blazed by C h r i s t i a n i t y , because human nature would never again sink so low. Now a f t e r s i x years of internat-i o n a l a t r o c i t i e s on a grand scale, such an assertion i s not only impossible, but few w i l l even•tolerate i t as a forecast of the future. We must, therefore, accept human nature, not as i t has been, or w i l l be, but as i t i s . I am mot f o r one moment suggesting that human nature can not be changed, f o r t h i s would be contrary to a l l modern psychology. I am merely pointing out that the change w i l l be very slow and the result can not be f o r e t o l d . In December of 1847, the English Communist League decided that Marx and Engels should draw up a statement of the aims of the League. This statement was published the next year and was c a l l e d the Communist Manifesto. It has, 78. i n Russell's words,". .bouyancy and swiftness, compression and propagandist force, and i s the hest thing that Marx ever did." (5.) Except f o r i t s c a l l to the workers to unite and i t s concluding threat of a communist revolution, i t is l a r g e l y a history of the world, showing the grim ef f e c t s of modern capitalism and the i n e v i t a b i l i t y of a p r o l e t a r i a n revolution. In i t one finds the tendency to b u i l d an all-embracing system and the d i a l e c t i c a l approach inherited from Hegel by both Marx and Engels. This i s e f f e c t i v e l y combined with the revolutionary s p i r i t s t i r r e d i n these men by the troubles of France and the knowledge Engels had of factory conditions i n England.(6.) This odcument had a profound influence on modern p o l i t i c a l thought and action, as i t i s s t i l l regarded as t h e i r creed by many Marxists. Their fundamental theory i s the m a t e r i a l i s t i c coheption of history which states that a l l mass-phenomena are determined by purely economic motives. Russell, i n c r i t i c i z i n g this view, points out that ±ins philosophical materialism and t h i s doctrine have no l o g i c a l connection, because materialism i n the philosophical sense refers to the theory that a l l mental occurences are purely physical i n t h e i r o r i g i n . He draws th i s out to form a foothold f o r 5. Freedom and Organization, Page 209. 6. The Conditions of the English Working Class i n 1844. by Frederick Engels. h i s b e l i e f that any attempt to base a p o l i t i o a l theory on a philosophical doctrine is undesirable. People who3e p o l i t i c s are metaphysically dogmatic, come to regard t h e i r theories as ultimate and universal and feet that i^Ef i s t h e i r duty' to mankind to spread t h e i r hopes and fears around. This i s what gives r i s e to r e l i g i o n of any kind, which i n i t s turn usually gives r i s e to fanaticism. The m a t e r i a l i s t i c conception of history considered as a p r a c t i c a l approximation, can, of course, not be t o t a l l y denied, as there i s much i n it- that i s acceptable not only t o the demands of modern society, but also to any r e a l l y r a t i o n a l mind. They i n s i s t that modern i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n has tremendously influended our s o c i a l culture and our mental l i f e . In many ways they are r i g h t . Our minds have become more emancipated, the world is smaller, we are more dependant on each other, and i n a hundred other shapes and forms the manufacturing era has stamped i t s impress on our l i f e . Russell suggests some s p e c i f i c a l l y important things which have been affected. Among the working c l a s s , r e l i g i o n had decayed, while among the wealthy i t has revived, thus proving, perhaps, that i t i s much easier to have f a i t h with a f u l l stomach than without. However the r e a l reason f o r t h i s deviation is that c a p i t a l i s t s f i n d defenses f o r t h e i r p o s i t i o n among some of the react-ionary doctrines of the church. $0. As another example there i s a new attitude towards women. For several generations philosophers and sociolog-i s t s l i k e John Stuart M i l l and Mary Wollstonecraft had advocated eq.ual rig h t s for women, hut i t took a world war and the deperate need for more workers to make a l l the arguments f o r placing women on an equal hasis with men i r r e s i s t a h l e . More important than t h i s was the new view on sexual morality, which developed as a n t i t h e t i c to the old system which was controlled hy the economic dependance of women on t h e i r male r e l a t i v e s . Changes in sexual morality are changes which must inevitably affect the whole s o c i a l process, as they are so inextricably bound up with men's thoughts and f e e l i n g s . Thus we f i n d that l i t e r a t u r e , law,, and indeed our entire culture undergoes a complete r e v i s i o n simply because of a more i n t e l l i g e n t consideration of the p o s i t i o n of women. In the face of such an analysis as t h i s , Marxists are quite right i n speaking of a morality imposed on the xaorld by capitalism. But they are hardly accurate when they ignore a l l the non-economic factors i n t h e i r interpret-a t i o n of the p o l i t i c s and b e l i e f s of a people. There are several of these factors which are obviously important and among these i s that great psychological force known as nationalism. Economics does, i n a large measure, provide a mainspring f o r p o l i t i c a l action, but i t i s not the 'raison d'etre' f o r the formation of nations. People group together within c e r t a i n houn daries Because they have the same common heritage, not only of race and color, . hut also of culture and language. In addition to, or instead of, one of these-causes, they may he united geographically or c l i m a t i c a l l y . Once any nation has sur-v i v e d long enough to acquire t r a d i t i o n and legend, then the people or descendants of those who were at one time a part of that nation are never happy u n t i l the old order has been restored. One of the f i n e s t i l l u s t r a t i o n s of t h i s point is the general chaos of the Balkan countries, where the pressure of population has so i n t e n s i f i e d n a t i o n a l i t y that i t has become almost impossible to discover any adequate solu t i o n to the problem. I f the economic s e t t l e -ment of the s i t u a t i o n were acceptable to the people, the whole problem would disappear. A further example can be found i n the f e e l i n g which exists between northern and southern Ireland. Communists assume that man w i l l associate with other people in his own c l a s s , and though t h i s i s p a r t i a l l y so, i t i s not the whole truth. His r e l a t i o n s with his fellowmen are largely determined, not by economics, but by some other superior interest which they hold i n common such as t h e i r r e l i g i o n . Russell i n s i s t s that, "Religion has been the most decisive f a c t o r i n determining a man's '.22/. herd through out long periods of history."(7 .) One other element which is r e a l l y v i t a l has been ignored i n the creation of a ' m a t e r i a l i s t i c theory and that i s that the actions of the vast majority of people are due to c e r t a i n desires which are best c a l l e d human desires. Ultimately, Communism assumes that every i n d i v i d u a l who i s aware of p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y i s moved by a desire to increase his own share of t h i s world's goods, and that i n the process he w i l l also further the e f f o r t s of a l l the other people i n his c l a s s . This theory disregards the f a c t than many men,rightly or wrongly, are not as i n t e r -ested in money, which probably i s hard to envision anyway, as they are i n furthering t h e i r own pride and s e l f respect. Also they desire power in order that they may be v i c t o r i o u s over t h e i r r i v a l s and thus s a t i s f y some i n s t i n c t i v e f e e l i n g of superiority over others. Man is guided not by his economic desires, hut by his endeavors to increase his ego and s a t i s f y i t s demands. Russell contends that i n the Marxian treatment of the l i f e of i n s t i n c t , there are very decided shades of Procruste's notorious bed. He f e e l s that a p o l i t i c a l psych-ology more accurate than t h e i r s can be devised, and he proceeds to outline one which he believes w i l l serve his. purpose better. Russell c a l l s t h i s psychology his own view on 7.Principles of S o c i a l Reconstruction, Page 246. human p o l i t i c a l and s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and as i t contains many of his own personal b e l i e f s , i t must be accepted as a minor part of his own doctrine, the major part of which i s v his concept of the e i l s of power. This theory i s what may be c a l l e d an i n t e r a c t i o n i s t one, f o r he f e e l s that fund-amentally the major issues are a mixture of both material conditions and human passions. The operative process of the system i s one in which passions or whims or desires play upon the external properties. Usually these passions are modified by i n t e l l i g e n c e , but whether or not the i n t e l l -igence w i l l be positive or negative and.what the nature of the passions w i l l be are the two questions which confront us most f o r c i b l y i n surveying present day p o l i t i c s . I f passions are so decisive, they should be studied and c l a s s i f i e d , and Russell does t h i s with an e x c e l l -ent thoroughness, The basic desires are f o r the things which make l i f e bearable; food, water, sex. To these, climatic differences may add shelter and clothing. Founded upon these primitive desires are a series of secondary ones. They include the in s t i n c t to hoard and preserve f o r the future, the love of the good opinion of others, r i v a l r y , and the love of pow.er. The basic passions are large l y b i o l o g i c a l , while the secondary ones are those that influence p o l i t i c a l l i f e . Of these four passions, acquisitiveness, vanity, r i v a l r y , and love of power, only the f i r s t i s interested i n man's r e l a t i o n to. the material world, while the others are a l l concerned with his s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s . This i s where the Communists make t h e i r mistake as they assume that the govern-ing force is acquisitiveness alone. Russell points out that many men w i l l w i l l i n g l y s a c r i f i c e riches f o r power and glory, which brings us back to the theory of a superior ego f i r s t stated by Neitzschhe and l a t e r taken up by the Nazis. May I make i t clea r here, though Russell does not, that I do not consider there is anything b a s i c a l l y wrong with t h i s tendency i f i t is not carr i e d to an extreme, as the desire f o r some sort of superiority appears to be common, not only to a l l men, but also the progenitor of many outstanding human achievements. It i s thi s tendency which gives energy to men's thoughts and makes them actualize that which i s potent-i a l l y within them. As t h i s energy i s basic to l i f e , then the desire from which i t springs must also be fundamental. I am not advocating a mass ego-inflation, but, on the contrary, I am merely pointing out how harmful to society a general i n f e r i o r i t y complex would be. The role of in t e l l i g e n c e as a modifying agent i s usually neglected by p o l i t i c a l t h e o r i s t s , probably because the in t e l l i g e n c e referred to is not political,.nbut s c i e n t i f i c and t e c h n i c a l . As suchi i t has i t s most profound effect on material conditions. The Bessemer process created the German ir o n and s t e e l industry, e l e c t r i c i t y made tungsten valuable. The l i s t could go on i n d e f i n i t e l y , hut the important thing is that t h i s ' exercise of in t e l l i g e n c e has procured a vast change, not onlyn in our economic organization, hut i n everything we do. For thousands of years, o i l was only so. much mud i n the ground, hut i n the past century inventions req u i r i n g o i l have made i t one of the most valuable commod-i t i e s on the world market. People are w i l l i n g to fight and if-need be to k i l l f o r i t s possession. The d i r e c t i o n the world w i l l take, whether to advance or to retrogress depends on how t h i s i n t e l l i g e n c e i s used. It may be used to increase methods of production so as to increase the share of a l l , or i t may be used to release more manpower f o r the business of k i l l i n g off r i v a l s . The c o n f l i c t resolves i t s e l f to one between acquisitiveness and r i v a l r y , the question being which one w i l l triumph. The answer depends on how we use new s c i e n t i f i c techniques and so leaves the soluti o n of a l l our s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l problems squarely up to the people who created them. At the same time, though there can be no doubt that s c i e n t i f i c technology and economic techniques were the main cause of p o l i t i c a l change i n the nineteenth century, s t i l l they were not the whole cause. For example, they cannot account f o r the d i v i s i o n of mankind into various nations. Russell does not believe that Communism as i t has been practiced i n Russia has shown the way to any better s o l u t i o n of the problem than has .modern democracy. So f a r there has been no notable tendency to put an end to war and use new methods to solve international problems. Nor has^ been any •''concent rat ed attempt to understand human nature and deal with i t accordingly. Instead, they have splight to pour i t into a mold and regiment i t as they have t h e i r f a c t o r i e s and armies. His great objection to Communism, however, remains the basic one that the l i b e r t y of the in d i v i d u a l becomes a' myth, while his freedom i s completely subjugated to the w i l l of the state, which in t h i s case means the w i l l of one p o l i t i c a l party with one d e f i n i t e philosophy of government and law. He i n s i s t s that a l l seeking and s t r i v i n g , a l l romance and adventure, i n short a l l those things which make l i f e worth the e f f o r t , cease to play any role i n the l i f e of a Communist state. Man becomes a robot. • The economic theories of Karl Marx, which are also those of the present day Communists are of vast importance i n the p o l i t i c a l a f f a i r s of the present day. Unfortunately, Russell never r e a l l y seriously considers any economic theories, which is. one of the greatest f a u l t s of his p o l i t i c a l c r i t i c i s m . The only economic theory which he does consider i n any d e t a i l at a l l i s that of the G i l d S o c i a l i s t s which I w i l l take up i n the next chapter, as i t r i g h t f u l l y belongs t h e r e . I w i l l a$s.o d i s c u s s other forms of s o c i a l i s m bes ides c o l l e c t i v i s m or s t a te s o c i a l i s m , . These forms are important because of the great i n f l u e n c e they have had on s o c i a l i s t s and s o c i a l i s t i c s t heo ry , not because of any th ing we have l ea rned from them i n p r a c t i c a l expe r i ence , as they have never been put i n t o p r a c t i c e . 88, Chapter Six . Anar chism, Syndicalism, and Gi ld Socialism. In the more recent past since man has become p o l i t i c a l ^ conscious, there have been many other governmental theories spring up besides the ones which have already been mentioned* These include Anarchism, Syndicalism, State Socialism and G i l d Socialism, Hone of them have been t r i e d i n practice on a & large scale, but a l l have had enough supporters to make t h e i r theories and doctrines well known* Russell himself thinks that a form of G i l d Socialism i s the most adeq.ua.te theory of government and since he devotes a considerable amount of time and engery to a study of these more or l e s s minor doctrines, I f e e l that they cannot be passed over l i g h t l y i n a. work of th i s nature* Probably the f i r s t of these to appear h i s t o r i c a l l y was Anarchism, a doctrine which grows out of theoretical!'/ accounts of the state of nature, and whose sources l i e i n the s o c i a l l i f e of primitive t r i b e s , Anarchism made i t s strongest bid f o r public approval i n the l a s t century and has many ad-vantages to recommend i t * These should not be m i n t e d , despite JB the fact that new s c i e n t i f i c techniques with regard to war-fare have made anarchy impossible as'.u p r a c t i c a l p o l i t i c a l fieo theory* "Anarchism, as i t s derivation indicates, i s the theory which i s opposed to every kind of f o r c i b l e government*. It i s opposed to the state as the embodiment of the force employed i n the government of the community. Such government as anarchism can tolerate must be free government, not m e r e l y i n the sense that i t i s that of the majority, but in the sense that i t is that assented to by a l l * Anarchists object to such institutions as the police and the criminal law, by means, of which the w i l l of one part of the community is forced upon another part* In their view the democratic form of government is not very enormously preferable to other forms BJB long as minorities are compelled by force or i t s potentialitiesto submit to the w i l l of the majorities* Liberty is the supreme good in the Anarchist creed, and l iberty is sought by the direct road of abolishing a l l forcible control over the individual by the community*" (I*) Modern anarchism is properly called Anarchistic Communism as individual is t ic Anarchism has almost ceased to • exist, and as the present doctrine is concerned with the communal ownership of land and capi ta l , thus having a certain kinship with Socialism* Whereas the Social ists believe that the cap i ta l i s t i c , tyranny of one man over another can be l imited by giv.ing economic power to the state, the Anarchists seek as conrjblete as possible a. diminution of the authority of the state and hope eventually for i t s complete disappear-ance* The founder of modern anarchistic theory was Michel Bakunin, a Russian bom p o l i t i c a l philosopher who discarded Hegelianism in favour of his own theories* In adult l i f e he I* Pages 50-51 of Roads to Freedom* wanSered from one country to another hut was as always forced to move on*. He spent many years i n prison, though he f i n a l l y escaped and spent the remainder of h i s l i f e expounding h i s views i n Southern Europe where he fought against Mazzini's nationalism and devoted himself to spreading the s p i r i t of anarchist r e v o l t * In 1867, he founded the International A l l i a n c e of S o c i a l i s t Democracy i n Switzerland* The prog-ramme of this organization which he drew up i s the programme ac t u a l l y not ownly of h i s own opinions hut of a l l Anarchism since h i s time* "The A l l i a n c e declares i t s e l f a t h e i s t , de-si r e s the d e f i n i t i v e and entire a b o l i t i o n of classes, and the p o l i t i c a l equality and s o c i a l equalization of individuals of both sexes* It desires that the earth, the instruments of labour, like' a l l other c a p i l t a l , becoming the c o l l e c t i v e property of society as a whole, s h a l l be no longer able to be u t i l i z e d except by the workers, that i s to say by agricult u r e and i n d u s t r i a l associations* It recognizes that a l l a c t u a l l y ex i s t i n g p o l i t i c a l and authoritarian. States, reducing them-selves more and more to the mere administrative functions of the public services i n the i r respective countries, must d i s -appear i n the universal union of free associations., both a g r i c u l t u r a l and i n d u s t r i a l * " (2*) This a l l i a n c e l a t e r joined the Internatioal Working Men's Association, an organization inspired by Marx and eventually l o s t i t s own i d e n t i t y thaough the merger. 2» Programme of the International A l l i a n c e of S o c i a l Democracy, 1898. ITo s i g n i f i c a n t anarchistic movement has appeared since* The whole theory of Anarchism was made much more coher-ent by h i s sucessor Krop&tkin, who believed b a s i c a l l y the same things, but stated them i n a clearer and l e s s impassioned fashion* Much of h i s work i s concerned with the technical questions of production and l i k e most S o c i a l i s t s he believed i the standared of l i v i n g could be greatly improved by a more organized and s c i e n t i f i c productive system* He advocated the a b o l i t i o n of the wage system and a l l compulsion to work* Man he said, would prefer work to' idleness i f the work was. enjoys* able* Our aim should be to see that t h i s i s done* Whether or not i t i s possible i s another question, but as i t has never been t r i e d there can be no answer* The past h i s t o r y of the movement i s not, a pleasant one* It has attracted many high-minded i n t e l l i g e n t men who detest authority and love the l i b e r t y of the i n d i v i d u a l * But, i t has also attracted many psychoneurotics who see i n i t only freedom to cmmmit criminal and immoral acts* The outrages perpetrated by t h i s unwelcome fring e have made the word i t -s e l f synonomous with t e r r o r and violence to the general public, a. fact which has almost irreparably injured the Anarchists cause. Russell points out that we must' separate the gold from the dross i n our estimate of the value of the theory, and that we should not confuse the harm done by un-balanced enthusiasts with the saner views of the r e a l leaders. Heconcludes that Anarchism i s u n l i k e l y to ever again a t t a i n any r e a l prominence, hut he also f e e l s that i t has many very sane ideas*. The main differences between Anarchists and S o c i a l i s t s ' l i e i n the conception of the role of government* Intheir con-ception of the organization of society, they are also closely related as they both believe that the instruments of pcoductron ion should be owned by the producers* The l a t t e r believe i n the democratic p r i n c i p a l of majority rule, whereas the former i n s i s t that majority rule may be just as predjudiced as auto.craey and that government should require the unanimous consent, of a l l the people. The element of truth i n t h i s assertion i s undeniable. However, the revolt of Anarchism against purely p o l i t i c a l government has remained weak and was replaced, p r i o r to the f i r s t world war by Syndicalism and the movements which grew out of i t . It i s these movements which popularized the change from purely p o l i t i c a l government to a government by the wage earners* The origins of Syndicalism ar> complicated and no lon-ger s i g n i f i c a n t to us, due to the almost complete disappear-ance i n the l a s t quarter century of organizations supporting the theory. Before the f i r s t world war, however, The theory did achieve a certain amount of prominence, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n France, and i t was instumental i n the creation o& several S o c i a l i s t and Labourite p o l i t i c a l parties which have grown stronger i n the world of today* The e s s e n t i a l doctrine of Syndicalism i s the class war theory,and t h e i r aim was to conduct t h i s war by i n d u s t r i a l rather than by p o l i t i c a l methods* The chief methods which, they advocated were the s t r i k e , the boycott, and sabotage* Many ordinary S o c i a l i s t s have questioned the morality of such methods, but the f i r s t of these, at any rate, has become i n -creasingly common i n modern i n d u s t r i a l disputes* Russell suggests that the aims of the Syndicalists are somewhat more vague than t h e i r methods* In a way they are too metaphysical and represent t h e i r party asa one of constant change* But though th e i r aims may be vague, there i s nothing vag vague about the negative side of t h e i r b e l i e f s * They are opposed to> States and to State Socialism and desire to have evry industry self-governing* As they are i n t e r n a t i o n a l i s t s and believe that a l l working men everywhere have the same common i n t e r e s t s , they are opposed to war between states* which they i n s i s t are not fought f o r interests that concern the workers* The great infltreBde of Syndicalism was on the early trade unions, which they considered capable of govern-ing the country. This influence i s s t i l l v i s i b l e to a matted degree i n modern trade unions, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the United States. It. i s f o r t h i s reason only that Syndicalism retains any importance as a theory, because as. a movement, i t no longer e x i s t s . The following quotation from a leading B r i t i s h newspapttF c l a r i f i e s the differences between these three types of Socialism. " A l l Syndicalism, Collectivism, Anarchism, aims at abolishing the present economic status and ex i s t i n g private owBweship of most things; but while C o l l e c t i v i s m would substitute ownership by everybody and^ownership by . ... V nobody, Syndicalism aims at ownership by organization of Labour* It i s thus a purely Trade Union reading of the ec-onomic doctrine and the class war preached by Socialism* It vehemently repudiates parliamentry action on which c o l l e c t i v i s m r e l i e s ; and i t i s , i n t h i s respect, much more cl o s e l y a l l i e d to Anarchism, fEgmr/which., indeed, i t d i f f e r s i n practice only i n being more l i m i t e d i n range of actiont*30> Syndicalism takesaccount of men only as producers i n co n t r a d i s t i n c t i o n to State Socialism which considers them only as consumers* Another organized Labour group, the G i l d S o c i a l i s t s believe the problem can only be s e t t l e d by r e c o n c i l i n g the two points of view, and that you cannot re-concile two points of view by denying them* Nevertheless, though they attempt to adjust these differences, they de-ive t h e i r force and many of t h e i r ideas from S y n d i c a l i s m * Their basic endeavour i s to secure the better payment of 3* London Times August 24, 19II* work by making i t . more . i n t e r e s t i n g and more democratic*. R u s s e l l says, " G i l d Socialism aims at autonomy i n industry, with, consequent curtailment, but not a b o l i t i o n of the power of the State* The system which they advwcate i s , I believe, the best hitherto proposed, and the one most l i k e l y to secure l i b e r t y withodt the constant appeals to violence which are to be feared under a purely Anarchistregime" In industry each factory i s to be free to control i t s own met-hods of production by means of elected managers. The d i f f e r -ent f a c t o r i e s in a given industry are to be federated into a National. .Guild which w i l l deal with marketing and the general interests of the industry as a whole. The State would own the means of production as trustee f o r the community, the Guilds would manage them al^so as trustee f o r the community, and wou-l d jpasi the State a single tax or rent. Any Guild that chose to set i t s own interests above those of the Community would be v i o l a t i n g i t s trust,"'and would have to bow to the judge-ment of a tribunal equally representing the whole body of pro-ducers and the whole body of consumers. This Joint Committee tfould be th?. ultimate sovereign body, the ultimate appeal court of industry. It would f i x not only Guild taxation, but also standard p r i c e s , and both taxation and prices would be p e r i o d i c a l l y readjusted by i t . Each Guild would be e n t i r e l y free to apportion what i s receives amotig i t s members as i t chooses, i t s members-being a l l those which work i n the indust-ry which i t covers. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of this c o l l e c t i v e | # GA*^L*«AJ. » U « « U " t i * ^ / u f c e - t * ^ , C/k^O <J3 Guild incom's- among i t s members seems to be a matter f o r each • Guild to decide f o r i t s e l f . Whether the Guilds would sooner or l a t e r adopt the p r i n c i p l e of equal payment for every mem-ber i s open to discussion. The Guild S o c i a l i s t s have never made themselves cl e a r on th i s matter, preferring to believe that i t w i l l solve i t s e l f when the need a r i s e s . There are many factors which must be taken into consideration with regard to equality of wages and they i n f e r that such a system as they advocate would create new problems which we cannot s e t t l e i n advance as we do not know them... Theyonly thing to do i s to wait and see, ind to deal with the whole problem of -wage equality when i t a r i s e s . Russell continues, "Guild S o c i a l i s t s regard the State as consisting of the community i n their capacity as consumers, while the Guilds w i l l represent them i n the i r capacity as pro- . ducers;. thus Parliament and the Guild Congress w i l l be two co-equal powers representing producers and consumers respectively. Above both w i l l be the Joint Committee of Parliament and the Guild Congress, f o r deciding matters involving the in t e r e s t s of both groups." (Page 95 Roads to F ) This, then i s the essence of Anarchism, Syndicalism, and Guild Socialism. Whether or not we think that any of these schemes are practicable, we cannot deny that they have done much to inspire the workers of today i n a l l democratic countr-i e s . They have given b i r t h and l i f e to'many modern trade un-ions and labour organizations, which i n t h e i r turn are making themselves f e l t very loudly i n present day a f f a i r s . Russell adds that they have also succeeded i n two other ways, though neither of them were de l i b e r a t e l y interitioned, F i r s t , they reemphasized the desire f o r l i b e r t y which had be-come somewhat obscured i n the course of the development of parlimentary socialism. Second, they have reminded mankind that what the world needs i s not a l i t t l e r e p a i ring and mend-ing of old troubles, but a sweeping away of a l l the old oppres-sions and a complete reconstruction of society based .on the new ideas i n p o l i t i c a l l i f e and the new changes i n s c i e n t i f i c tech-nology, Russell i n s i s t s that this merit i s so great as to make these' movements important f o r a l l time i n the h i s t o r y of socialism, even though they h ave almost passed e n t i r e l y out of sight as d e f i n i t e movements. 99. Chapter Seven, Po wer and Internationalism. "I do not think any reasonablei-person ean doubt that the e v i l s of power i n the present system, are v a s t l y greater than i s necessary".(1.) Then concept of power and of i t s significance i n the world overshadows a l l of Russell's work. It occupies the same place i n his p o l i t i c a l philosophy aa r e l i g i o n does i n C h r i s t i a n i t y and economics i n Communism. For t h i s reason i t may seem rather odd to f i n d i t discussed i n the l a s t chapter of t h i s t h e s i s . My reasons f o r t h i s , however, seem quite l o g i c a l to me. Power in a l l i t s forms, says Russell, can only be c u r t a i l e d and controlled by Internationalism. Therefore, i n any consideration of how the e v i l s of power can be overcome, we must be prepared at the same time to consider how Internationalism may be attained and whether or not i t would be a d e s i r -able state of society. But Russell's views on Internat-ionalism can only be properly understood when placed i n perspective with his views on a l l other Important p o l i t i c a l ideologies. Their place comes at the end, f o r he believes that the entire p o l i t i c a l h i s t o r y of c i v i l i z a t i o n has been the construction of new s o a i a l forms upon outmoded ones, u n t i l the process reaches i t s natural and inevitable culmination i n an international world state. Russell's most comprehensive work on t h i s subject 1.Proposed Roads to Freedom, Page 191. 101. has appeared, r e l a t i v e l y recently, hut his ideas on the subject date hack to some of his e a r l i e s t writings. In 1903, he wrote the short essay, A Free Man's Worship, i n which he said , " I f power i s had, as i t seems to he, l e t us reject i t from our hearts. In that l i e s man's true freedoml: A l l hope of a better world through science i s l o s t while greed and power remain".(2.) The main thesis of his l a t e r book 'Power' which came out i n 1938, is that the laws of s o c i a l dynamics are only capable of being stated i n terms of various forms of power. In order to discover these laws we must.first c l a s s i f y the forms of power and then review the ways i n which individuals and organizations have been able to gain control of i t . Power, he defines as the production of intended e f f e c t s . He commences by stating that humans are goaded on i n t h e i r actions by t h e i r imaginations, co-incident with which i s t h e i r desire for power and glory. This power i s the basic motivating force and history can only be interp-retated by r e a l i z i n g t h i s . In addition, power has many forms and i t must be thought of i n terms of a l l i t s forms, rather than i n terms of s p e c i f i c a l l y i s o l a t e d forms such as the economic, r e l i g i o u s , or m i l i t a r y . These forms of power are f i v e f o l d i n his a n a l y s i s . The f i r s t i s power over matter, then power over the i n d i v i d -2. A Free Man's Worship, Page 1. 1Q3I. u a l , while the last three are what he c a l l s t r a d i t i o n a l , naked, and revolutionary power. The growing amount of power over matter made possible by rapidly expanding s c i e n t i f i c knowledge i s one of the chief causes of change i n the modern world. xhe control and d i r e c t i o n into useful channels of t h i s know-ledge is one of the more imperative questions with which the nations of today are confronted. In'Icarus', Russell suggests that , "Science might perform miracles i n the interests of peace, but i s more l i k e l y to act i n the inter e s t s of war", a fact which has become a l l too apparent i n the years since he wrote t h i s sentence. Power over the i n d i v i d u a l i s obtained i n a multitude of varying ways. These include brute force, blackmail, bribes and inducements, propaganda, and the use of secret p o l i c e . People, Russell declares, automat-i c a l l y divide into two groups, the leaders and the follow-ers. Leaders frequently use fear to gain power, as i n a crisis..'people w i l l submit themselves to the w i l l of others due to fear. Russell has always emphasized the ro l e of. fear, and i t s importance cannot be denied, though I f e e l that i n our present world i t has undergone a s l i g h t change of meaning. The basic fear of today i s one of lack of security, rather than one of the use of force. T r a d i t i o n a l power i s more the power of habit than 103. of anything else. It has many aspects. Wealthy men i n s i s t on t h e i r hereditary powers because they have always had them. For the same reason the majority of the people acquiesce i n allowing them to keep t h e i r power. The church's power is also lar g e l y t r a d i t i o n a l and often i s based on ignorant s u p e r s t i t i o n as well as habit and the fear of h e l l . The starkest form of power i s what he c a l l s naked power, usually accompanied by m i l i t a r y force. It develops within a country i n two ways. F i r s t , when two opposing factions come into c o n f l i c t with each other and , secondly, when t r a d i t i o n a l b e l i e f s decay and are not replaced by new ones. Fortunately the periods of naked power are b r i e f and usually disappear either by conquest or the r i s e of a new r e l i g i o n , or by the establishment of a t r a d i t i o n a l d i c t a t o r s h i p . Marx said that a l l economic power i s naked power. Russell points out that Communism stands f o r economic power, and that i f the people l i v i n g under t h i s order are content, then economic power i s t r a d i t i o n a l . It only becomes naked when existing customs are upset. The last of the f i v e forms of power i s revolutionary power. This i s distinguished from naked power by the fac t that i t i s a group, not an in d i v i d u a l who seeks power i n order to i n s t i t u t e the doctrines of t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r creed. It often r e s u l t s when the t r a d i t i o n a l ' system has 10 9. dissolved into skepticism and power i s needed to preserve the s o c i a l order. It can, however, he as disastrous to the' i n d i v i d u a l as naked power. There are other types of power which cannot he s t r i c t l y included i n these f i v e forms. Of these, economic power is very important, hut Russell takes pains to point out that i t i s only one element i n the science of power. While i t i s derived from law and public opinion, i t can i n turn influence both by corruption and propaganda. It may also lead to m i l i t a r y power or vice versa. The modern tendency has been to combine a l l these three types of power i n the state. Public opinion, however, cannot be considered ultimately powerful, because i t can be generated or changed by either of the ^Wwwtwo types of power. Persua-sion oan convert a small minority. This minority i n turn forces only c e r t a i n propaganda on the majority. The l a t t e r aceepts the propaganda and public opinion has been formed. The question of how much l i b e r t y feteE of opinion the government should allow the people, i f i t wishes to continue i n power, s t i l l remains. If the government i s revolutionary, i n d i v i d u a l freedom w i l l probably bring further revolution. HRh©^idea here i s that what has orked once w i l l work again. If the government i s t r a d i t i o n -a l , i n d i v i d u a l freedom i s . l i k e l y to act as a safety valve •l(M». j as i t has proved to he i n Great B r i t a i n . Russell also points out that cfeeds are frequently sources of power. They are e s s e n t i a l to s o c i a l cohesion, hut can only he strong i f they are f e l t by a majority of the population. He concludes by pointing out that i n a war of creeds, the ultimate v i c t o r y w i l l go to neither, but to those who shrug- t h e i r shoulders and consider the issues of both sides unimportant. Power i s l i m i t e d by boredom, weariness, and the love of ease. He suggests that these are the only r e s t r i c t i o n s which appear to be placed on the growth of power, but that, as they are t r a i t s common to a l l men, they are powerful r e s t r i c t i o n s . Power has always depended on a high degree of organization, and since the modern state has become such a closely integrated system, i t s power has been greatly increased. P o l i t i c a l parties have become t i g h t e r and more r i g i d . This has been p a r t i c u l a r l y the case i n F a s c i s t and Communist countries. Here, the development has not beeu that of a p o l i t i c a l party, but of a secret society formed due to the suppression of l i b e r t y by an autocratic government; In t h e i r turn, these parties have become powerful enough*any elements opposed to t h e i r . d o c t r i n e s . Fascism has kept big business under control \>y the fear of Communism. These means are not open to democracies, who are pledged to guarantee the l i b e r t i e s of a l l . As seon as they "break t h i s pledge, they cease to he true democracies i n our sense of the word. Russell says that as economic car t e l s grow larger, the sfete absorbs them. If t h i s is so,the end ought to he a world state. A c t u a l l y i t seems to depend on the size of the c a r t e l . I f i t i s large enough to be a danger and a nuisance, i t may be absorbed, but i f i t i s very large and in t e r n a t i o n a l , i t i s too big f o r the state to f i g h t . Competitive capitalism i n his opinion i s l i t t l e better than the huge cart e l s of today. He speaks of i t as merely a nineteenth century device to avoid the dangers of a r b i t r a r y power. Neither the one, nor the other, nor Communism offer any s a t i s f a c t o r y s o l u t i o n to the problems of our time. A new, broader, and more universal system must be worked out. The ethics of power and the r e l a t i o n s h i p of power to moral codes i s the next topic to b r i e f l y claim his attention. The moral code of a group i s never wholly an expression of power as there have always been e t h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s that are not related to power. In a way, the i n s t i n c t f o r power i s r e a l l y synomous with desire, f o r i t i s a way to s a t i s f y t h i s desire. But power, by means of propaganda, does determine moral codes to a cert a i n extent. Russell refers to the type of morality thus created as posi t i v e morality. It i s analagous to law which i s formed, from i t , and i t i s usually held "by the majority. Contrary to t h i s i s personal morality which i s that of the individual's own conscience, which cannot he controlled by the group or creed i n power, except i n so f a r as the i n d i v i d u a l is the product of his own education and environment. In Russell's opinion, too, there are ce r t a i n e t h i c a l consideration which make a world federation desirable. In the l i v e s of a l l people there are many e v i l s which hinder them i n the pursuit of a f u l l and usefu l l i f e . These may be roughly divided into three classes. F i r s t are the physical i l l s . 1 These include a l l pain and suf f e r i n g with i t s frequent climax i n death, together with the simple struggle to make the s o i l produce. Next come the e v i l s of character, which include such things as ignorance and violent passions. F i n a l l y come those e v i l s which depend upon the power of one i n d i v i d u a l or group over another and which are i n any way responsible f o r interference with free development. These are the e v i l s of power. Tn the world of the future these e v i l s must be eliminated. Russell says that t h i s can be done i n three ways. Science w i l l overcome the physical e v i l s , and education i n i t s widest possible form may do away with some e v i l s of character. But the e v i l s of power can only be eradicated by the reform of a l l p o l i t i c a l 10& . and s o c i a l l i f e to such an extent as to reduce to the lowest possible minimum, interference with the l i f e and a c t i v i t y of man. I now come to the l a s t and perhaps most d i f f i c u l t s e ction of t h i s thesd.3; Russell's discussion of how power is to he tained and used for the benefit instead of the detriment of mankind, and how- our s o c i a l organization must he reformed i n order to remove the e v i l s of power from our l i v e s . It i s the l a s t section, because i t sums up a l l of Russell's hopes for the future of c i v i l i z a t i o n . I t i s d i f f i c u l t f o r two reasons. First,and foremost, i s the fact that Russell's suggestions f o r curing the world's ailments, though they are always s i m i l a r and consistent i n t h e i r essence, are nevertheless extremely widely scatt-ered throughout a l l his works and are very d i f f i c u l t to co-ordinate. Secondly, there i s l i t t l e i n h i s views that i s concrete and could be put into immediate practice. He i s b a s i c a l l y , of course, a philosopher, and as such i s concerned with looking on at the world and suggesting improvements along broad, general l i n e s , rather than i n is o l a t e d d e t a i l s . For these reasons, I s h a l l not attempt here to outline s p e c i f i c suggestions which he makes, but rather I s h a l l attempt to indicate the general tenor of the ideas which he advocates, and of the b e l i e f s of which he is convinced. Of these l a t t e r , the most fundamental i s that the modern state is harmful to society and to i s welfare. He i n s i s t s that no other organization can arouse l o y a l t y so completely and so intensely as the state can. It has every means at i t s disposal to do so. S e i s also convinced that the chief a c t i v i t y of the modern state i s preparation f o r what he terms' international homicide' . Whether or not t h i s conviction seems more passionate than accurate, the fact remains that the his t o r y of the wofcldr.f or the past seventy years must lend i t a c e r t a i n amount of truth. War i s the most drastic form of control over i n d i v i d u a l l i v e s . Such things as compulsory conscription and the death penalty f o r i n t e l l i g e n c e with the enemy, to name only a few make war the most h i t t e r enemy of that freedom and l i b e r t y of the i n d i v i d u a l , the pursuit of which i s , f o r Russell, the only r e a l l y worthy aim i n l i f e . The only s o l u t i o n to the problem of nationalism and war i s internationalism or a v/orld federation of a l l nations. At a moment when the term has become a byword i n a l l p o l i t i c a l a f f a i r s , Russell's emphasis on internation-alism seems rather redundant. But the term has only, entered the consciousness of most people i n very recent months, whereas Russ.ell has been a fi r m advocate of the theory f o r over t h i r t y years. In a sense, he deserves much credit as one of the pioneers of the theory. UP. Such an international state would have to he democratic. While democracy does not insure good govern-ment, i t does prevent c e r t a i n e v i l s such as oligarchy or d i c t a t o r s h i p . The threat of "bureaucracy i s ever present, hut would have to he dealt with "by c o n s t i t u t i o n a l means, rather than creating a new system to deal with i t , which i n turn would have other, possibly greater defects of i t s own. The one important problem s t i l l l e f t unsolved in a democracy i s that r u l e by a majority may mean p e r s e c -ution of a minority, or a part of the minority. This has been proved to be frequently the case, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n race-conscious America. The only adequate solution seems to rest i n the education of the masses and i n co n s t i t u t -i o n a l protection of the minority as well as the majority. Minority propaganda should be allowed,- except i n a straight case of incitement to break the law by violence or to seize power by force. In such an instance, the pledge of the democracy to the people to maintain order i s more important than the guarantee of freedom of thought and action. I f one must be s a c r i f i c e d , then i t i s the l a t t e r which must go. Another necessity if democracy i s to be remodelled and used as a world system^is the reform of the entire l e g a l organization. To begin with, both i n the interests of i n d i v i d u a l l i b e r t i e s and of minorities, the low should 11:1. be as tolerant as i s compatible with technical e f f i c i e n c y and the maintenance of order. Further, even i n democracy, individuals must be protected against the tyrannies of the police and the courtroom. Russell suggest that a p r a c t i c a l arrangement would be to divide the system into two branches f o n e to f i n d proofs of g u i l t , and one to f i n d proofs of innocence. It is such a democratic state as t h i s on an international plane that Russell envisions. But he i s w i l l i n g to start on a smaller scale with a federation of nations to which a l l of the countries of the world would be compelled to belong. This federation would be supported by an international police force, and would have complete control over a l l production of instruments of warfare. These, then, are the p o l i t i c a l conditions necess-ary f o r the creation of such a state. But what of the economic conditions ? Russell is not an economist, but he ventures to describe, rather too c u r s o r i l y , the economic organization which he considers would be practicable. A c t u a l l y , i n economics, he i s a G i l d S o c i a l i s t and his views on the subject r a r e l y range f a r from those of the supporters of t h i s movement. The methods and means of production should be owned and controlled, as well as merely used, by the workers themselves. Each industry or vocation would elect representatives to a sort of grand council which would he used as an advisory body to parliament. Some G i l d S o c i a l i s t s even suggest that t h i s council should be the parliament i t s e l f , with pr e c i s e l y the same power as members hold when elected i n the present way. There two things which s t r i k e me most f o r c i b l y about such a system, although Russell does not mention them at a l l . F i r s t , inevitably the parliament would be infliienced almost completely by one industry or one small clique of indu s t r i e s . . In a country l i k e Canada, represent-atives?-, of agriculture would be able to control every parliamentary session to the possible harm of other ind u s t r i e s . The group i n power would be much more s t a t i o n -ary, and therefore more reactionary, than under our present party system, which has already more than enough f a u l t s. Second, such a governmental body, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the form of a vocational council advising a p o l i t i c a l parliament, would be extremely clumsy. In order to make i t workable, various committees would be set up. '^he natural result would be the very thing which must be avoided at a l l costs i n any true democracy, bureaucracy. This i s the international state Russell postulated. Present day statesmen have added greatly to the theory as a whole, but they cannot detract from Russell's importance as a pioneer i n the f i e l d . In a sense he went beyond them,for t h e i r minds are s t i l l clogged with the concept of nationalism. In Russell's opnion, and in mine, the only hope c i v i l i z a t i o n h a s,lies i n an international federation free from the besetting greed of n a t i o n a l i s t p o l i c i e s , and working f o r the common good of a l l raizes, - a l l colors, and a l l creeds. 1 1 * Conclusion, In a recent book published by Northwestern Un i v e r s i t y (1.), a number of essays commenting on the entire range of Russell's philosophical writings have been c o l l e c t e d . They have been written f o r the: most • part by men who are not philosophers themselves, but are, rather, philosophical commentators. Russell was then invited to reply to t h e i r c r i t i c i s m s , and has done so i n his usual b r i l l i a n t manner, though h i s r e p l i e s are somewhat more cryptic than usual. I have not, i n the course of t h i s t h e s i s , paid much attention to t h i s book, because I do not f e e l that as a whole, i t i s a very valuable estimation of R u s s e l l . While some of the essays are sound and scholarly, others seem hurried and written without a very wide acquaintance with the books about which they are written. His r e p l i e s are excellent, however, f o r two reasons. F i r s t , because they contain a recent restatement of his views, many of which were f i r s t stated years ago, showing how l i t t l e his ideas have changed. Secondly, because he corrects the misconceptions and misunderstandings i n the minds of these men, thus making himself clear once and f o r a l l . For these reasons, I have elected to close my theses by summarizing those r e p l i e s which are concerned with t h i s work. 1. Bertrand Russell, Volume 5, Library of L i v i n g Philosophers edited by P. A. Schilpp, 1944. life. With regard to E. C. Linderaan1 s essay on his' S o c i a l and Concise Philosophy, he says,"I note with pleasure that he sees no necessary connection between my views on s o c i a l questions and my views on lo g i c and epistemology. I have always maintained that there i s no l o g i c a l connection, pointing to the example of Hume with whom I agree so largely i n abstract matters and disagree so t o t a l l y i n p o l i t i c s . There i s , I think, a psycholog-i c a l connection, but that, I think, i s a different matter." He also appreciates Lindeman's analysis of his doctrine of the et h i c a l n e u t r a l i t y of science. Russell says that science is a t o o l which i s needed f o r any deliberate s o c i a l change, but whether the s o c i a l change i s f o r better or f o r worse depends upon i t s purposes, which science alone cannot determine. Science i s e t h i c a l l y neutral. A railway helps me whether I am going to v i s i t an i n v a l i d , or murder one. Science creates p o s s i b i l i t i e s both good and bad, but i t i s not science which decides how they w i l l be u t i l i z e d . Russell's philosophy i s c r i t i c i z e d by Lindeman as abstract and t h e o r e t i c a l . Russell i n s i s t s that he has beea. a p r a c t i c a l reformer i n his own country and that his philosophy is very d e f i n i t e l y one of action. Here, there i s cer t a i n l y something to be said f o r both sides. In a sense, he has been a reformer, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n 1.11. education, but only i n a l i m i t e d way. His r e a l work has been advocating reform by means of the written word, and not by p r a c t i c a l a c t i o n . The essay on Russell's r e l i g i o u s views i s a rather unique summary of those views. He believes that there are three mainaspects to r e l i g i o n . One, a man's own personal b e l i e f s insofar as they have to do with the nature of the world and the conduct of l i f e . Two, theology, and f i n a l l y , i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d r e l i g i o n . He states that philosophy i s , or ought to be, concerned only with the theological aspect of r e l i g i o n , T cannot agree as I f e e l that i t should and does concern i t s e l f as well with r e l i g i o n as a way of l i f e or as a personal b e l i e f . Russell never r e a l l y distinguishes between r e l i g i o n as a personal or public t h e o l o g i c a l system, and r e l i g i o n as a way of l i f e , a d i s t i n c t i o n which i s becoming increasingly necessary i'n our modern world. I have avoided any detailed reference to McGill's essay on Russell's p o l i t i c a l and economic philosophy, because McG i l l , a Marxist, shows himself not only predjudiced against Russell, but also to have missed the point of much that Russell has said. In his reply to t h i s essay, Russell does not take i t very seriously and wonders where McGill got his ideas. McGill assumes that Russell says war i a the inevitable result of a 112. natural impulse to aggressiveness, whereas what Russell a c t u a l l y said i s that people whose l i v e s have been thwarted i n some way have t h i s impulse, not a l l people. He accuses Russell of not being dynamdd, but when Russell c a l l s f o r a dynamic psychology as i n 'Soc i a l Reconstruction' and 'Power',, he advises him to remember that human nature i s unchangeable, a statement which Russell dismisses as xmworthy of an answer. Again, he deliberately confuses Russell's use of the terms i n s t i n c t and impulse. Russell i s not' using i t i n the s c i e n t i f i c , psychological sense of animal behavior, but i n i t s looser and more popular meaning. This may be a mistake, but a clever man would recognize i t as such and pay no further attention. F i n a l l y , he asserts that Russell cannot forgive the Marxists t h e i r rationalism. Russell r e p l i e s that they have none, but are i n the g r i p of a strong, theolog-i c a l dogmas and that f a i t h i n d i a l e c t i c a l materialism i s impossible f o r anyone who believes i n s c i e n t i f i c methods. Russell's reply to the essay on his educational theories i s precisely my own reaction to i t . He says simply and b r i e f l y , that not only has Bode hopelessly misinterpreted him, but that he obviously has not read his most important book on the subject,'On Ed\ication8. I have t r i e d to the best of my a b i l i t y to do ug. two things i n t h i s t h e s i s . F i r s t , I have attempted, to prove that Russell's p o l i t i c a l philosophy has been coherent and consecutive, the natural elaboration of c e r t a i n fundamental ideas and b e l i e f s . Second, I have attempted to provide a complete, though a l l too b r i e f , outline of t h i s p o l i t i c a l philosophy, showing how one thing l e d to another u n t i l they a l l wound up as a part of his intense toelief in, and intense desire f o r , i n t e r -nationalism. I can only hope that I have succeeded i n achieving both these ends. i 1*0. Bibliography. 1. Belgion, Montgomery, Our Present Philosophy of L i f e . Faber and Faber Limited, London, 1930. 2. Joad, C. E. M., An Introduction to Modern Philosophy. Oxford University Press, 1925. 3. MacCarthy, Desmond, L i f e and Letters, Volume l,No.6. 4. Russell, Bertrand, 1.German S o c i a l Democracy. London, 1893. 2. Philosophy of L e i b n i t z . London, 1900. 3. Philosophical Essays. . Longman's, Greene and Co., New York, 1910. 4. P r i n c i p i a Mathematica. Cambridge Univ e r s i t y Press, 1910. 5. P r i n c i p l e s of S o c i a l Reconstruction. G. A l l e n and Unwin Limited, London, 1916y (American edition) Why Men Fight. The Century Company, New York, 1916. 6. Mystic ism and Logic. Longmans, Green, and Company, New York, 1918. 7. Proposed Roads to Freedom. Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1919. 8. Practice and Theory of Bolshevism. G-. A l l e n and Unwin Ltd., London, 1920. 9. The Analysis of Mind. G. A l l e n and Unwin Ltd., London, 1921. 10.Prospects of In d u s t r i a l C i v i l i z a t i o n . The Century Company, New York, 1923. 11.Icarus, or the future of Science. K. Paul, Trench, Trunber, and Co., London, 1924. 12.What I Believe. K. Paul, Trench, Trubner, and Co., London, 1925. 13.On Education. G.Allen and Unwin Ltd., London, 1926. • (American edition) Education and the Good L i f e . Boni and L i v e r r i g h t , New York, 1926. 14.Skeptical Essays. W.W.Norton, Inc., New York, 1926. 15. Analysis of Matter. Harcourt, Brace, and Co., London, 1927. 16. Marriage and Morals. H. Li v e r i g h t , New York, 1929. 17. The Conquest of Happiness. H. Li v e r i g h t , New York, 1930. 18. Education and the S o c i a l Order. G. A l l e n and Unwin Ltd., London, 1932. (American edition) Education and the Modern World. W.W.Norton, Inc., New York, 1932. 19. Freedom and Organization. G.Allen and Unwin Ltd., London, 1934. (American edition) Freedom versus Qrganization. V/.W.Norton Inc., New York, 1934. r i t h P a t r i c i a Russell Santayana, George, Schilpp, P.A. Whitehead, A. N. with Bertrand Russell 20. Religion and Science. T.Butterworth l t d . , london, 1935. 21. Amberley Papers. • I. and V. Woolf, London, 1338. 22. Power, A Hew S o c i a l A n a l y s i s . G. A l l e n and Unwin Ltd., London, 1938. 23. The History of Western Philosophy Simon and Schuster Ltd., New York, 1945. Winds of Doctrine. J.M.Dent, London, 1913. Bertrand Russell. Library of Li v i n g Philosophers. Northwestern University,1944. P r i n c i p i a Matheraatica. Cambridge University Press, 1910. A r t i c l e s and Book Reviews. Russell, Bertrand, Revue des Sciences P o l i t i q u e s , Paris, October, 1928. London Spectator, December 3,1927. London Times L i t e r y Supplement, January,1927. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0105752/manifest

Comment

Related Items